(1906) The English Patents of Monopoly

'^^^d.
c^^-SZtZ^
V
""'"^^'''y Library
KD 137i!p94"
^'',?i.,.M,?,!;,.,e3,'ent.s..of monopoly /
3 1924 022 174 696
QJornrll IGaui ^rl^nnl IGibrary

The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924022174696
HARVARD ECONOMIC STUDIES
Volume I: The English Patents of Monopoly,
by William H. Price. 8vo, $1.50, net.
Volume II: The Lodging-House Problem in

Boston, by Albert B. Wolfe. 8vo, $1.50,
net.
Volume III: The Stannaries; study of the A

English Tin Miner, by George R. L^wis.
Svo, $1.50, net.
Volume IV: Railroad Reorganization, by Stuait

Daggett. Svo, $2.00, net.
Volume V: Wool-Growing and the Tariff,

by Chester W. Wright. Svo, $2.00, net.
Volume VI Public Ownership of Telephones

:
on the Continent of Europe, by Arthur N.

Holcombe. Svo, $2.00, net.
Volume VII : The History of the British Post

Office, by J. C. Hemmeon. Svo, $2.00, net.
Volume VIII : The Cotton Manufacturing In-

dustry of the United States, by M. T.
Copeland. Svo, $2.00, net.
Volume IX : The History of

the Grain Trade m
France, by Abbott Payson Usher. In Press.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
HARVARD ECONOMIC STUDIES
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
VOL. I
THE ENGLISH PATENTS OF
MONOPOLY
BY
WILLIAM HYDE ÎCE, Ph.D.

INSTRUCTOR IN POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN AND SOMETIME HENRY LEE MEMORIAL
FELLOW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
AWARDED THE DAVID A. WELLS PRIZE FOR

THE YEAR 1905-06, AND PUBLISHED FROM
THE INCOME OF THE DAVID A. WELLS FUND
CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
Oxford University Press
1913
/3'
COPYRIGHT, igo6
BY THE PEESmENT AND FELLOWS OP HASVARD COLLEGE

:>•'_'•:-,.;•
,-;'\V
A
4
Qw'\y':"'
TO MY MOTHER
PREFACE
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, England ex-
perienced a series of attempts to establish monopoUes by royal
letters-patent, both for external and internal undertakings. The
external or commercial monopolies were conceded to groups of
merchants who exported to foreign countries the staples and manu-
factures of England. These great commercial companies, notably
the Merchant Adventurers and the East India Company, embodying
conspicuously as they did so much of national ambition and energy,
have naturally attracted the attention of investigators, while the in-
ternal monopolies, less prominent but no less interesting, have been
hitherto comparatively neglected. The avowed motive of both the
foreign and domestic monopoheswas that of organizing trade and in-
dustry under a national regulation which should protect and stimulate
these enterprises. The system of internal monopoly, however, included
a greater variety of objects and a greater comphcationof motives than
did the group of external monopolies. It included, for example,
a control of the press and of postal communication, primarily for
poUtical purposes; it comprised also Ucenses for contraventions of
penal statutes, inspired by fiscal motives as well as the necessity
of relief from cramping regulation. More important, from an eco-
nomic point of view, than either of these were the undertakings in
which it was hoped that the estabUshment of monopoly, under
royal sanction, might be the means of encouraging new or weak
domestic industries. The value of a systematic investigation of the
latter, and the justification of this monograph, lies not only in the
hght derived from one experiment with industrial privileges, but in
the special significance of this phase of English economic history.
With some allowance for overlapping, it maybe said that in England
"monopoly" formed the coimecting Hnk between "mercantilism"
and "protection." The system of exclusive privilege supplemented,
if it did not entirely supplant, the earlier policy which prohibited
the export of specie and of raw materials and enacted statutes of
via PREFACE
" employment " and ;
it led the way to the poUcy of protective customs
duties.
The materials for this study were collected in the Harvard College
and Law School Libraries at home, in the Bodleian Library at
Oxford, and at London in the PubUc Record Office, the British
Museum, the Privy Council Office, the Patent Office, the Guildhall,
Lincoln's Inn Library and the Library of the Society of Antiquaries.
Acknowledgments are due to the authorities and officials of these in-
stitutions for unfailing courtesy and timely assistance. I regret that
the kind interest of many friends in England can be recorded here
only in a general expression of grateful appreciation. But I owe
especial thanks to Mr. E. W. Hulme for guidance in tracing the
history of inventions from 1560 to 1660, and to Mrs. Lilian Tomn
Knowles and Mr. George Unwin for helpful suggestions from their
own studies in the economic history of this period. The two latter,
dififering somewhat as to the interpretation of the industrial poli-
cies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, aided my effort to do

impartial justice to the motives of the advocates of "ordered trade"
as well as to those of the advocates of "freedom."
My study of this subject has been conducted under the guidance
of Professor Edwin F. Gay of Harvard University, and I am in-
debted to him for sympathetic assistance from first to last. I do
not dare to think what my results would have been without his
stimulus and encouragement, without his hints as to sources of in-
formation, and without his suggestions as to the broader historical
relations of my subject. A service that I could ill have spared was
his conscientiously thorough criticism of my work, for which I can-
not be too gratefxil.
Cambridge, Mass., August, igo6.

CONTENTS
Part I. Political History.
I. To the Case of Monopolies 3

II. From the Case of Monopolies to the Statute of Monopolies .... 25
III. From the Statute of Monopolies to the Long Parliament .... 35
Part II. Industrial History.
IV. The Mineral Companies . 49

V. The Mechanical Inventions 62
VI. The Glass Patents 67
VII. The Royal Alum Works 82
VIII. The Cloth-Finishing Project 102
IX. The Iron Industry 107
X. The Salt Monopolies 112
XI. The Soap Corporations . . ... 119
XII. Conclusion . . . . . 129
Part III. Appendices. Bibliography. Index.
Appendices.
A. Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I, cap. 3, 1624 135
B. Items from "Notes of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, by the Lord Treasurer
Burghley" 142
C. A Note of Monopolies, 1603 145
D. Robert Cecil's List of Patents, 1601 148
E. List of Patents granted between the Parliaments of 1597 and 1601 . . 150
F. Another List 151
G. "Note or Catalogue showed, only altered in some places, for order's sake" 152
H. Bacon's Speech, November 20, 1601 154
J. Elizabeth's Proclamation concerning Monopolies, November 28, i6oi 156 .
K. The "Golden Speech" of Queen Elizabeth, to her last Parliament,

November 30, 1601 160
L. Proclamation of James I, suspending Monopolies, May 7, 1603 . . . 163
M. Declaration of the Judges concerning the Delegation of the Execution of
Penal Statutes, November 8, 1604 164
N. Letter of the Privy Council to the Town of Middleburg, September 8, 1614 165
O. Proclamation of James I, touching Grievances, July 10, 1622 . . . 166
P. Proclamation of James I, touching Grievances, February 14, 1623 . . 169
Q. Order in Council concerning Patents and Commissions, March 31, 1639 . 171
R. Proclamation of Charles I, revoking certain Patents and Commissions,
April 9, 1639 .
173
X CONTENTS
S. Sturtevant's Melallica, May 22, 1 612 i?^
T. Patent to Lord Dudley for Iron, 1621 '93
U. Patent to Dudley e/ a/, for Iron, 1638 i97'
W. Patent to Jones and Palmer for Soap, 1623 207

Y. Patent to Mansell for Glass, 1624 214
Z. Extension of the Patent to Mansell for Glass, 1634 226
Bibliography.
Manuscript Sources .... .... 245
Contemporary Printed Literature • 246
Parliamentary Proceedings . . . . • 248
Legal Reports ... . . . 248
Secondary Authorities . . . . 248
Index 251
ABBREVIATIONS
Lansd Lansdowne manuscripts.
Titus Cotton manuscripts, Titus.
Vesp Cotton manuscripts, Vespasian.
Harl Harleian manuscripts.
Egerton Egerton manuscripts.
Sloane Sloane manuscripts.
B. M. Add British Museum Additional manuscripts.
C. R Council Registers.
C. J ,
Journals of the House of Commons.
L. J Journals of the House of Lords.
Pari. Hist Parliamentary History.
S. P. D State Papers, Domestic.

S. P. D. E State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth.
S. P. D. J. I State Papers, Domestic, James I.
S. P. D. Add State Papers, Domestic, Addenda.
S. P. D. C. I State Papers, Domestic, Charles I.
Docq Signet Office Docquet Books.

S. P. Docq State Paper Docquets.
Pat Patent Rolls.
Exch. Dep. by Com Depositions taken by Commission, King's Remem-
brancer of the Exchequer.
Rem Remembrancia.
Rep Repertories of the Aldermen, London.
Hist. MSS. Com Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports.

Pap
Salisb. Calendar of Salisbury Papers, Hatfield House.
H. of L. MSS Calendar of manuscripts of the House of Lords.
B. M. Proc. Coll British Museum Collection of Proclamations.

Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll Society of Antiquaries Collection of Proclamations.
R. O. Proc. Coll Record Office Collection of Proclamations.
Diet. Nat. Biog Dictionary of National Biography.
L. Q. R Law Quarterly Review.
Secondary works and articles cited by the names of their authois.

See Bibliography, pages 245-250.
PART I
POLITICAL HISTORY
THE
ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
PART I. — POLITICAL HISTORY
CHAPTER I
TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES
Numerous isolated attempts to grant patents of monopoly as a

form of industrial encouragement were made on the continent be-
fore any similar action was taken in England.^ In 1467 a monopoly
was granted for the manufacture and sale of paper in Berne and
its jurisdictions.^ Two years later Johann von Speyer received
an exclusive privilege of practising the trade of printing in Venice
for five years.' It is from Venice that our first instance of glass-
patents, as well as of printing rights, comes. In 1507, the Council
of Ten granted an exclusive privilege for twenty years for the intro-
duction of a secret process of mirror-making.* It was also by
patent that this industry was established in France in 1551, when
a ten-year monopoly was granted for the manufacture of mirror-
1 In the absence of any careful investigation of the subject, for countries other
than England, use must be made of occasional and perhaps not always trustworthy
allusions in various secondary works.
' Kohler, ffandbuch des deutschen Patentrechts, Mannheim, 1900, p. 21, quoting
Zeitschrift fiir schweizerisches Recht, N. F. xv, pp. 6 fl.
' Klostermann, Das Patentgesetz fiir das deutsche Reich, Berlin, 1877, pp. 15, 16,
quoting Waechter, Das Verlagsrecht, Stuttgart, 1857, Th. i, p. 8 "Ut per annos :
quinque proxime futuros nemo omnino sit qui velit, possit, valeat, audeatve exercere
dictam artem imprimendorum librorum in hac inclyta civitate Venetiarum et dis-
trictusuo nisi ipse Mag. Johannes."

* Nesbit, Glass, London, 1878, p. 90. Nesbit gives no authority for this state-
ment, but his book shows familiarity with original Italian documents. It has been
suggested that the German glass-house, mentioned in 1507 by these Muranese, may
have been the forerunner of one specially exempted in 1 599 from a Flemish grant
for Venice glass. Houdoy, Verreries d. lafafon de Venise : La fabrication flamande
d'apris des documents inldits. Paris, 1873.
4 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
glass "according to the Venetian art." ' A curious and interesting
example of an early patent is given by Cardan. He describes a
machine, recently invented, which mon- is so useful to millers,
asteries, convents, and nobles that the inventor devotes himself
entirely to supplying their demands for the machine, for which he
has an exclusive privilege from the emperor.^
There were, however, few places in Europe where the economic
conditions favored the extensive development of a patent system
in the sixteenth century. Adequate guaranty of monopoly over o
vnde industrial area is an essential prerequisite of success for such
a system, and hence Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands offered
no congenial field. Isolated industrial centres within these coun-
tries, whether autonomous or not, could not protect an inventor
against infringement beyond their own borders, so that the ad-

vantages of an extended market were not sufficiently attractive to
encourage the divulging of a secret of manufacture. There were
better opportunities in France and England. The industrial pro-
gress of France was superior to that of England, but the poHtical,
social, and economic integration of the country had not gone as far.
The French crown enjoyed more wealth and magnificence, but less
' Renouard, Traitl des brevets convention, Paris, 1844, pp. 79, 80 " Des lettres- :
patents du 13 Juin 1 551 octroyent a Theseus Mutio, de Bologne, faculte, permission
et privilege de seul, durant I'espace de dix ans, faire ou faire faire dans le royaume
les verres, miroirs, canons et autres verreries a la fa9on de Venise, et iceux exposer
ou faire exposer en vente dans le royaume, et ailleurs ou bon lui semblera ; a peine,
centre les contrevenants de confiscation et d' amende arbitraire."
^ Cardanus, De Subtilitate, Nuremberg, 1550, p. 61 :
" Nam nunc cum pistores
omnes ob utilitatem habeant : ille vero privilegium conf ectus sit a Caesare ne quis
habere possit praeter ejus consensum, vitam ex hac agit industria, et adeo brevi
tempore sibi domum aedificavit. Neque enim pistores soli, sed collegia sacerdotum,
et virginum Deo sacrarum, et nobiles quicunque familiam magnam alunt, ob egre-
giam utilitatem ne dicam necessitatem habent, plures etiam alii quos non tam utUi-
tas quam ipsa rei admiratio incitavit, facere curavere." Cardan then goes on to give
an explanation of the machine and adds a drawing of it. On Cardan's place in the
development of experimental physics, see Hallam, Literature of Europe, i, pp. 400-
401, and the article in Larousse, Dictionnaire universel du xix' siicle. Cardan's
allusion to this patent is noted by Fournier, Le Vieux-Neuf, 2d ed. 1877, i, p. 391,
n. I, where, referring to the early protection of inventors in Germany, he states : " La
propriete industrielle avait, au xvi° siicle, ^te reglee en AUemagne, au moyen de
privileges qu'on donnait, non pas comme en France ainsi qu'on le verra plus loin, a
de grands seigneurs, done les inventeurs n'etaient plus que les associes ou plutdt les
proteges, mais qui ^taient deUvres aux inventeurs eux-m6mes."
TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 5
real national power than did the Tudors. Not only did the economic
organization in France foster local exclusiveness, but the efforts
of the central power were calculated to strengthen rather than to
supersede gild regulation inits expanded form of national monopoly.
Then, too, the financial resources of the French monarchy tempted

the state into a more active intervention in industry than was pos-
sible to the poorer English government, so that monopohes were
less hkely to be granted to private individuals. A generous use of
public money proved hardly more advantageous in French industry
than in French colonial enterprise.' Apparently the earhest system-
atic use of patents in France dates from the closing years of the
sixteenth century, and this may well have been in imitation of the
EngHsh patent system, already well developed.^
While continental governments were making sporadic attempts
to estabhsh new industries by means of industrial privilege, England
was moving in the same direction through a more or less inde-
pendent course of development. Before the middle of the sixteenth
century the industrial patents granted in England were in effect
but promises of protection to foreign workmen introducing new
arts, especially those connected with the clothing trades. The
best known of these were issued in the reign of Edward III.^ In the
following century other cases apparently indicate the contin-
uance of the poUcy.^ The practice of the early Tudor monarchs, in
encouraging the introduction of new arts, was to attract skilled
artisans into their own service. In this way German armorers, Ital-
ian shipwrights and glass-makers, and French iron-founders were
induced to establish new industries in England with the hope of
royal patronage.'
Down to this time the industrial privileges conferred by the
' Compare Fagniez, £,conomie socials de France, chap, ii, with Parkman, Old
RSgitne in Canada, ch. xx.
^ Fagniez, pp. 119 and 154 ff. ; Renouard, pp. 80 ff. ; Levasseur, .&"«/. class, ouvr.
2d ed. 1901, vol. ii, pp. 172 ff.
5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, May i, 1327, Hist. MSS. Com. xiv, pt. viii, p. 7; Pat. 1331, 5
Edw. Ill, m. 25, reprinted in Rymer (patent to John Kempe) Pat. 1336, lo
pt. I, ;
Edw. Ill ;Pat. 1368, 42 Edw. Ill, pt. i.

* Pat. 1440, 18 Hen. VI, pt. 18, m. 27 (patent to John Schiedame and company);
Rymer, xi, 317.
' Hulme, article in L. Q. R. April, 1896; Page, Denizations, p. xlii.
crown, far from being exclusive, had the contrary effect. They tended
to break down special privileges. Instances of grants of monopoly
must be sought, not in the royal patents, but in acts of Parliament
confirming and protecting local advantages that were being threat-
ened. The decentraUzation of industry under the domestic system
had led to organized attempts to support the former local monopoly
of the towns. The borough craftsmen sometimes induced the
country artisans to join their organizations, but more commonly
they excluded this outside competition.' Popular feeling, expressed
not only in literature ^ but also in statutes,^ supported the protec-

tion of town monopoly and regarded with disfavor the increasing
migration to the countryside. In this policy the Tudor sovereigns,
despite their occasional attempts to introduce skilled artisans, were
in full agreement with Lords and Commons. The forces of economic
progress, however, were working against the local inertia as ex-
pressed in parliamentary policy. Industry was outgrowing the
and was becoming national. This called
jurisdiction of the crafts,
for a regulation that was national, or none at all.
The release of industry from the fetters of local custom opened
the way for a diversification as well as an expansion of industry.
Elizabeth's accession introduced a vigorous and on the whole a
popular national administration. Ehzabeth, with the help of her
ministers, had the shrewdness to grasp the opportunity. Instead of
attempting to bolster up a local supervision which the spread of the
domestic system had rendered inadequate, the government was
encouraged by the new economic and pohtical conditions in the
effort to establish a system of national regulation, and to stimulate
new industries by increasing the extent and effectiveness of the

former policy of protective intervention. Thus the policy of grant-
ing patents was obviously suggested by the course of development
' See tJnwin, Industrial Organization,p. 86, citing stat. zo Hen. VI, c. lo (Nor-
wich, 1442), Hist. lyiSS. Com. Bury Edmunds, p. 133, Shrewsbury, p. 11.
St.
' Hales, Discourse of theCommonweal, Miss Lamond's ed. p. 131.
' 14& 15 Hen. VIII, c. i, country weavers not to deal with foreigners. 14 & 25
Hen. VIII, c. 3, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring competition. 21
Hen. VIII, c. 12, protection of Bridport artisans against neighboring competition.
25 Hen. VIII, u. 18, protection of Worcester artisans agsdnst neighboring competi-
tion. 5 & 6 Edw. VI, c. 24, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring com-
petition. I Mary, c. 7, seven-year apprenticeship in the country only. 2 & 3 Ph. &
M. c. 7, the weavers' act. 5 Eliz. c. 4, statute of apprentices.
in internal economic conditions. The period covered by the reigns

of EHzabeth, and Charles I was not the beginning of
James I,
industrial monopoly. It was important chiefly because of its na-

tional and systematic character, whereas hitherto monopoly had been
much more a local phenomenon. The system of monopolies under
royal patronage was in fact a somewhat reactionary attempt to
reconstitute monopolies along national hnes. The development
of the patent system in England was not accidental; many factors
conspired to make this country the birthplace of the system. A
nation of a fair degree of economic unity, with the narrower gild
regulations and local exclusiveness already dechning, with a sov-
ereign who in practice was well-nigh absolute, who surrounded
herself with ministers possessing at least the best practical economic
ideas that the time afforded, and who was interested in the industrial
development of the country but without command of resources
sufficient to involve the state in public enterprise on its own account,
— such were the chief conditions favorable to the development of
a systematic patent pohcy in England earher than in any other
country.
While the system as settled policy was not borrowed, the initial
suggestion apparently came from abroad. The earhest recorded

'
application for an exclusive patent for introducing a new art into

England bears the date of 1558 and was presented jointly by an
Englishman and an Italian.' The petition was granted in 1562 as
a reward of "diligent travail" and to "give encouragement to
others." ^ Meanwhile two other patents had been granted for in-
ventions of foreign origin.^ Before any one of these was con-
ceded, another Italian, Giacopo Acontio, in a petition for a patent
prefaced his application with the suggestion that "nothing is more
honest than that those who by searching have found out things use-
ful to the public should have some fruit of their rights and labors,
as meanwhile they abandon all other modes of gain, are at much
expense in experiments, and often sustain much loss." He then
explained that he had invented certain furnaces and "wheel-
' S. P. D. E. 1558, i, 56.

2 Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 10 (May 26, 1562), to George Cobham, for a dredging-machine.
3 Pat. 3 Eliz. pt. 6 (August 8, 1561), for white soap. Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 13, (January
3, 1562), for saltpeter.

machines" which others would copy without remunerating him
unless he were protected.^
During the first ten years of the patent policy (1561-70), twelve
patents were granted for various chemical products and processes,
and six for mechanical inventions. Some of the inventions and
inventors were native and some foreign, for "invention" was held
to cover first importation as well as first contrivance. The chemical
patents included such products as soap, saltpeter, alum, sulphur,
oil, salt, glass, and cloth- and leather-dressing. The mechanical
and grinding machines, furnaces
patents covered dredging, draining,
and ovens. During this decade also, numerous mining privileges
were conferred upon two groups of prospectors.^ In the course of
the next decade, seven mechanical inventions were patented, chiefly
for water-raising and drainage, and three for chemical inventions,
earthenware, glass, and sulphur. There was also a patent for sail-
cloth and one for playing-cards. Originally, the patents had been
given for ten years, but by this time twenty, twenty-one, and thirty
years had become more ordinary terms, the practice of reissuing
had commenced, and patents were no longer wholly confined to new
arts. In the course of the third decade (1581-90), more obvious
abuses crept in. No less than three new patents were issued for the
manufacture of salt. The third, to Thomas Wilkes,' continued in
force by means of extensions until 1601, when it was abolished by
proclamation in response to the bitter outcry against the extortions
of the patentee. Patents for salt, starch, train-oil, and paper were
issued to men who did not claim to be the first introducers. In this
decade, also, the saltpeter licenses became particularly irritating
and proved a constant source of popular resentment, for the deputies
used their authority to dig in houses,cellars, and barns.' Several
'
S. P. D. Add. December, 1559, ix, 39. The editor of the calendar adds that
"Acontius had an annuity of £y> granted February 27, 1560, letters of natural-
ization, October 8, 1561, and a license to take up workmen to amend Plumstead
Marshes, June 24, 1563, but not the patent here solicited." This is a mistake, as
the patent was received September 7, 1565. See also Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896,
p. 148.
^ See the list of patents given by Mr. E. W. Hulme in L. Q. R. April, 1896.
s
Pat. September i, 1585.
* The grievance from the saltpeter-men antedated the accession of Elizabeth.
See Clode, Early History of the Merchant Taylors^ Company, i, p. 87 (1545-6.)
mechanical inventions received patents, which caused little trouble.
The ten years from 15 91 witnessed the renewal of patents for
starch, salt, train-oil, paper, glass, and playing-cards, and a new
patent for vinegar, in addition to a few unimportant privileges
for genuine inventions.^ In each of the cases named established
industries were attacked. Meanwhile, the system of licenses was
being given an unprecedented extension. Those which attracted
most attention were for the sealing of leather, the alnage of the new
draperies, the survey of cordage, digging for saltpeter, the super-
vision of taverns and of gaming-houses; patents for remission of
penalties under the acts for sowing of flax and hemp, for the tanning
of leather, and against the use of gig-mills; and finally a miscel-
laneous group of licenses for the exportation of commodities con-
trary to statute.^
The export Ucenses occupy a position somewhat anomalous.
They were admitted to be monopolies and were decried as such, —
fairly so, perhaps, for they constituted exclusive privileges, — but
their purpose and results were in opposition to trade restrictions.
They were granted for the most part in contravention or suspension
of statutes prohibiting certain exports. Hence they may very well
have constituted a political grievance. It is needless to say that
in current opinion they also formed a grave economic grievance.
The prohibitory acts of Parliament were frankly class-legislation,
and very serious results would have followed the rigid enforcement
of some of the most extreme of them. This was the case particularly
with a great deal of legislation, experimental in character, which
was passed at one session at the demand of one interest, only to be
modified or repealed at the next or a later session, at the complaint
of another interest. Sweeping restrictions were made in certain
trades, the rigid enforcement ofwhich either experience or urgent
representations demonstrated would be injurious. In such cases the
crown simply exercised the wide discretionary power which it
claimed, and authorized certain exceptions to the law which would
give partial or complete relief. The special licenses for the export of
grain, for instance, were in addition to the licenses automatically
' See list of patents, 1570-1600, by Mr. Hulme in L. Q. R. January, 1900.

^ See Appendices B, C, and J.
lO ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
provided according to prices in the locality of export.^ Like the
hcenses for the export of ordnance, they were often justified by the
desire to help needy allies upon the continent. In the case of
ordnance, however, popular alarm was frequently aroused by the
supposed laxity of the crown in yielding to such suits without due
guaranties that English guns would not thus find their way to Eng-
land's enemies.^ While the prohibitions of the export of grain were
in the interest of consumers, those upon the export of calf-skins,
pelts, wool, and "white" broadcloths were for the protection of the
native manufacturers. But such restrictions, rigidly enforced, would
have caused serious difficulties, for the native industries were not
in a position fully to utihze the advantages thus conferred. They
were not able to work up all the raw material placed at their dis-
posal, and even if they had materially increased their output they
would have been unable to find a market for their products, owing
to the fact that, without protection, they had already enjoyed a
market for as much of workmanship
their output as their crude
could satisfactorily supply.^ The prohibitions upon export of raw
materials were intended to force upon foreigners and EngHsh alike
products which were completely manufactured in England. But as
most of these prohibitions proved to be premature, there was
the prospect of discouraging and even ruining a large part of the
interests devoted to the production of raw materials. This would
in the long run have reacted upon English craftsmen, reducing them
to as small a supply and as high a price for their materials as before
the prohibitions. To afford relief, licenses were granted either by
way of exception or as privileges of long or indefinite duration. The
prohibitions upon the export of calf-skins, for example, would
have ruined a very important industry and a well-established branch
of foreign trade. To avoid these consequences, numerous licenses
' E. g., Cotton, Vesp. C. xiv, no. .238 (fol. 574) ; Pat. 3 Eliz. pt. i (January 24,
1561), and see warrant for Appendix B, and also, in tlie
licenses, July, 1592, in
same Appendix, the item under date of November, 1592 and Appendix H. ;
2 The acts against export of " gun-metal," 33 Hen. VIII & 2 Edw. VI, were sup-
plemented by proclamation to cover ordnance of iron, but licenses and illicit export
excited the House of Commons, and a bill was there passed against the transpor-
tation of iron-ordnance. D'Ewes, pp. 670 ff. (December, 1601), Oldys, Life of
Raleigh, 1829, pp. 345 ff.
' See below, chapter on the Cloth Project.

1
were granted, each for a term of years, authorizing a limited num-

ber to be shipped out of the country/ Likewise licenses were
granted for the exportation of Norfolk wools, notwithstanding a
temporary prohibition.^ The most important of all the export
licenses were those for the "whites" or unfinished broadcloths.
Dyeing and finishing of fine cloths had not been successfully estab-
lished in England, and legislation ' attempted to encourage the
industry by drastic means. But this was continuously and almost
completely nulhfied by licenses to the Merchant Adventurers and
by smaller grants of the same sort to others. When, in the middle
of James's reign, these cloth licenses were called in and an attempt
was made to enforce the law, the immediate derangement of trade
which resulted proved the necessity of the licenses.* Some of the
export licenses which were used effectually to swell the lists of
monopoUes presented for parliamentary discussion in 1601 can
hardly have been serious grievances. Such were, for instance, the
"
licenses for the gathering and exporting of " Usts, shreds, and horns
and of "ashes and old shoes." When the fear of "regrators" or
'''
jealousy of foreign countries led parliaments to include refuse and

discarded wearing apparel among the articles which must not leave
the country, the crown can hardly be blamed for facihtating the
efforts of those who sought to engage in the export of these com-
modities. Similarly, the jealousy which inspired the prohibition of
transportation from Ireland, of agricultural and grazing products
and a few simple manufactures such as linen yarns, was rightly
checked by licenses." It might have been better, from a purely
economic view, if the restrictions had not been enforced at all, but,
politically considered, special exceptions were probably preferable.
Taken as a whole, the presumption is that these Hcenses did more
' Of these, the most important were those in the interest of the merchants of
Chester. Consult Harl. 2104, nos. 4, 9, 23, 26.
2 See Appendix B. An internal license also remedied in a measure the inconven-
ience resulting from the statute 5 Edw. VI, c. 7, directed against wool-brokers or
middlemen who were supposed to enhance the price of wools, but whose services
were found indispensable to the northern drapers. See S. P. D. January, 1615, Ixxx,
13-16; Lansd. 48, 66; 21, 65; B. M. Add. 34324. fols. (new) 8, 26.
3
33 Hen. VIII, u. 19; 8 Eliz. c. 6.
' See below, chapter on the Cloth-finishing Project.
5 See Appendices B to G. ° See Appendices B and C.
good than harm, notwithstanding the evils that must have resulted
from the unequal way in which the troublesome statutes were
avoided.
The case of the dispensing patents is analogous to that of the
Ucenses for export. The grants of dispensation from penal laws
authorized patentees either' to issue pardons upon receipt of com-
position, to grant dispensations from the penalties of statutes upon
receiving a fee, or to "take the benefit of forfeiture." The differ-
ences in the three forms were hardly more than verbal. Historically
allgrew out of the custom of providing in penal statutes for a
crown and the informer,
division of the offender's fine between the
and the dispensing patents regularized the growing practice of
collusion between offenders and informers. It vsdll be seen that
these transactions virtually enabled offenders to bargain, either

periodically or once for all, for the right to break the law. Immunity
might even be purchased without an individual bargain, for a
patentee would gain most by establishing a fixed price so low that
large numbers would be led to purchase exemption. This form of
patent was nominally abandoned after the reign of Elizabeth, the
withdrawal being due to the declaration of the judges who gave
advice against them in 1604 when consulted by the Privy Council.'
Yet after this "the taking the benefit of obsolete and impossible
laws" was frequently heard among the grievances, for the old
practice was continued in the commissions issued under James
and Charles for compounding with transgressors in the name of
the king himself, thus conforming with the words of the declaration
of 1604.^ Very many of the acts of Pariiament which were thus
intrusted to the discretionary execution of a patentee were as ill-
advised as the prohibitions upon export. Thus Parliament had
yielded to the popular opposition against the gig-mill, which was
regarded as inimical to labor by substituting machinery for the
antiquated practice of treading in the fulUng of cloth, and all use
of the machinery was prohibited.' Proclamations subsequently
' See Appendix M.

2 See c. g., the following commissions for inclosures : Pat. 5 Jac. I, pt. 18 (Feb-
ruary 16, 1608) ; 6 Jac. I, pt. 37 (May 20, 1608). Pat. 15 Jac. I, pt. 5 (February 28,
1618). Pat. II Car. I, pt. 5 (May 8, 1635) ii Car. I,
; pt. 9 (November 13, 1635).
3
5 &6 Edw. VI, i;. ^.
3
permitted their use for half the process only. Later, the crown
interfered by issuing a patent for the benefit of forfeiture under the
act." Ostensibly this was a measure of enforcement, but a con-
sideration of the customary manner in which such deputations
were enforced would lead to the presumption that the patentees
accepted compositions or anticipatory fines which practically
authorized the evasion of the law. In 1630, Charles attempted to
reform "abuses" in the Shrewsbury district.^ The appointment of
a commissioner ' in this district was a part of the general principle
of "thorough" which characterized the king's whole economic
pohcy. The attempt of the commissioner to interfere with the use
of gig-millswas then regarded as an innovation which shows that
the act had not been regularly enforced, and this is further con-
firmed by the serious inconveniences which followed directly upon
the new policy.^ Another unfortunate statute was designed to
reform the abuses in the tanning of leather. All that subsequently
appears points uniformly to the fact that the act was in every way
injurious to the trade. Regulations for tanning were minutely pre-
scribed by a body of men no one of whom seems to have possessed
the slightest knowledge of the tanner's art. Very likely the condi-
tions required could not have been successfully obeyed by a single
tanner. However may be, it is certain that no attempt could
this
have been more misguided than that of prescribing a uniform

practice, irrespective of leather, bark, and water, all of which varied
in their chemical quahties in different parts of the country.^ Differ-
ent methods of preparation, moreover, were needed in accordance
with the purposes for which the leather was intended. Hence of
it was said,° could
fifteen clauses in the statute only six, possibly
be observed. If the law had been rigidly enforced, its repeal at an
early session would almost surely have resulted. But the theory
upon which the crown then acted prevented it from shifting the
responsibility upon Parhament and required that the burden should
remain with the executive. Discretionary powers were exercised
' Pat. 36 Eliz. pt. II (April 17, 1594), to Roger Bineon and William Bennett.
2 S. P. D. October 29, 1630.
3 Procl. April 16, 1633, S. P. D. ccxv, 56.
* S. P.D. August I, 1633.
^ Fleetwood to Burghley, Lansd, 20, no. 4.
« Lansd. 5, no. 58.
and the act remained unrepealed. Though only partially enforced,
it was the foundation of subsequent regulation under Sir Edward
Dyer, who was authorized to pardon and dispense with the pen-
alties for violation of the statute.' Legitimate as were- the grounds
upon which the dispensing patents were based, it yet was true of
them that their employment was most unfortunate, for they offered
unusual temptations to those who dealt in them. Dyer and his
deputies gained an evil reputation for extortion practised under
cover of the patent.^
No single motive is sufficient to explain all the other numer-
ous and diversified grants. The desire to encourage invention,
the advancement of political power by means of the regulation of
industry, financial considerations, and the desire to reward her
servants and favorites, must all be considered as influencing the
monopoly policy of the queen. The encouragement of invention
continued to be regarded as one of the chief pubhc concerns,
although as the years went on this consideration had diminishing
weight in patent policy. The advancement of pohtical power was
sought more particularly in the hcensing patents. The extension
of this system was a natural though not necessarily desirable result
of the effort to nationalize the country. This end was best to be
attained by unity of economic interests. At the time it was thought
that uniformity was equally necessary, and supervision of industry
in the direction of uniformity was part of the program of central-
ization. Hence the crown was predisposed in favor of any project
which promised a uniform regulation. But inasmuch as patents
were usually granted as a result of petition on the part of some one
who had a selfish interest in the grant, the desire for national regu-
lation was not the immediate incentive in the conferring of the
privileges, and the most that can safely be said is that a petitioner
was more sure of success if he could show that central control of
industry would incidentally result from his privilege.
The granting of patents was, as a rule, prompted by the pecuniary
interest either of the crown or of the patentee. Thus in the case of
the export and dispensing Hcenses already considered, a very im-
portant, if not the chief motive, was the financial advantage both to
the crown and the favored grantees, who divided their profits with
' See Appendix C. 2 Lansd. 24, no. 70.
TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1$
the sovereign by the payment of rents. That the fiscal motive ani-
mated the administration can be further shown by an examination
of the circumstances attending the granting of the starch monopoly.
The courtiers who successively enjoyed it were in debt to the queen,
and she apparently hoped to reimburse herself by helping them at
the expense of her subjects. A petition growing out of the failure of
an arrangement between the first and the second patentee renders
it plain that the patent was issued and reissued as a means of
hquidating the debts of two courtiers whose financial circumstances

were desperate. The queen joined in the general scramble of cred-
itors to realize upon inadequate assets, intervening to prevent the
performance of a contract which bears the indication of having

been especially negotiated in order to make the contracting parties
preferred creditors instead of the queen. The crown's financial in-
terest alone explains the extraordinary vigor with which the Council
prosecuted offenders against this particular monopoly.' Neverthe-
' Young received the patent April 15, 1588 (Pat. 30 Eliz. pt. 9). It was trans-
ferred to Pakington, July 6, 1594 (Pat. 36 Eliz. pt. 13), and reissued May 20, 1598
(Pat. 40 Eliz. pt. 16). By the terms of Pakington's patent, he was to reserve ;£'34S
a year and the residual interest remained with Young. Both patentees left the ad-
justment to their respective creditors, Anton and Ellis, who arranged that Young
should accept a fixed sum of ;if 500 per annum, instead of the residual interest.
Ellis secured an agreement that hisown claims against Young should first be satis-
fied out of Young's interest, but the queen interfered and required the payment to
herself of the whole income, in part payment of a debt of £,ôao due to her. Hist.
MSS. Com. Cal. Salisb. Pap. -j, pp. 532, 533. The profits of this monopoly were
estimated as low as ;^40o (Lansd. 73, fols. 32-3), and as high as £TZi,o. B. M. Add.
36767, fol. II, and 12497, fol. 313. The lower estimate is probably the more correct.
Under both patentees, the starch monopoly was the occasion of an unusually large
number of summonses before the Council Table, where offenders were often simply
enjoined " to give their attendance " upon the Council or some member of it until
formally dismissed. See C. R. May 22, July 23, 29, November 19, 1592, Febru-
ary 8, November i, 1595, January 17, 28, February 4, 1596. But prosecutions were
perhaps pursued to punishment with more vigor under Pakington's patent. See C R. .
February 8, September 6, October 6, November i, 1595, January 11, 17, Febru-

ary 4, 6, May i, 19, 1596. The consequences of the jealous enforcement of this
monopoly and the accompanying abuses were as serious as were possible for such
a commodity. The trade, originally in the hands of the Company of Grocers, was
practically taken from them and they were obliged to submit entirely to the terms
of the patentees in order to be allowed to resume it. Wholly unreasonable demands
were constantly imposed upon them, with the alternative of forfeiture. The pa-
tentees and their deputies took advantage of their opportunity to practice all sorts
of extortion under color of their privilege, and accepted bribes for lenient treatment.
6

less, with the exception of the patents in contravention of statutes,
Elizabeth did not derive much direct profit from the administration
of the monopolies. With few exceptions, the patents called for
merely nominal rents, so that even if these rents were never de-
faulted, as they certainly often were,^ the revenue would not have
been great. Allowing for the expenses incurred by the constant
necessity of executive intervention to protect patentees, there is
reason to doubt whether the rents covered the outlay. Those rents
that were higher than the usual merely nominal sum were designed
to compensate for the loss of customs revenue by the decline or
prohibition of importation.
The evil features and abuses of the monopolies owe their origin
rather to the importunity of influential and unscrupulous suitors
than to the fiscal interests of the crown. The very possibility of
securing exclusive privileges was an invitation to those at court to
join in the race for favors. The courtiers were not attracted by the
patents for new inventions, leaving those for the poor and often
chimerical inventors, but they sought to secure the more valuable
licensing patents or else lucrative new monopolies in old industries.
The frugal queen, though loath to part with her treasure, was
willing to bestow valuable patents upon her pensioners, favorites,
Strype's Stow's Survey, ii, 177; B. M. Add. 36767, fol. n; S. P. D. October,

1601, cclxxxii, 29 ; Salisb. Pap. v, pp. 275 ; Rep. July 22, 1592. The monopoly had as
important industrial as commercial consequences, with the result that the manufac-
ture was carried on uneconomically. Exclusive of the illicit production, not reached
by the monopoly, the interference of the patentees confined production to a few
undertakings. There were only four plants licensed for London and vicinity. B. M.
Add. 36767, fol. 1 1. It was naturally to the interest of the patentees to counte-
nance only a few undertakings, for their control would then be easier, but the inter-
ests of the trade were injured. The prevailing type of business organization, under
the small master, was more suitable for the industry, as was proved by the fact that,
after the monopoly was removed, many small concerns sprang up without increas-
ing the aggregate production. Titus B, v, 315. The ostensible object of the
patents was to prevent the consumption of wheat in the manufacture of starch, but
evidence is not wanting that such starch as was made under the supervision of the
patentees was made with good wheaten flour (B. M. Add. 36767, fol. 11), and those
acquainted with the manufacture in this period regarded the possibility of employing
bran alone as a popular delusion which was fostered by those who had no intention
of foregoing the use of flour. Lansd. 152, fol. 130 Titus B, v, 315. ;
' The government often had to accept compositions for the full rents. See C. R.
May 22, 1592, June 28, 1579, December 23, 1578; Salisb. Pap. v, pp. 525.
7 ;
personal servants, petty officers and clerks.' It is evident that the

grants to the servants of the queen's household, and to clerks, were
conferred in lieu of salaries.Salaries might have been more accept-
able and surely would have been better for the nation, but there
was no civil Ust and Elizabeth had other uses for her crown revenues
and for the grants which she chose to ask from Parliament. What
was explained concerning Wilkes's patent for salt is typical: "The
said grant was given unto him by her Majesty in some reward of
his service, and is a principal part of his maintenance." ^ In the
hands of the corrupt courtiers ' the system of monopolies, designed
originally to foster new arts, became degraded into a system of
plunder. Projects of all sorts found advocates and, for a considerable
time at least, there was no adequate machinery for investigation
into the expediency of suits. The great majority of courtiers holding
these privileges acted in the boldest spirit of exploitation. Having
no acquaintance with the arts over which they were set, the only
mission that they recognized was that of helping themselves in a
mercenary and extortionate manner.
Notwithstanding the mutiplicity of patents and the abuses con-
nected with many of them, they long escaped serious opposition.
This be attributed to the cautious manner in which the policy
is to
was pursued throughout the reign, and to the traditional deference
to the queen's will. The royal caution was displayed in the anxiety
to avoid any open defiance of the common law. Although there
seems to have been some attempts to forbid law suits,' this cannot
' The starch monopoly, already noted, is an instance of an established industry
deliberately handed over to courtiers. Other examples are the patents for playing-
cards to the " pensioners " Bowes and Bedingfield, Pat. i8 Eliz. pt. i (July 28, 1576)
that for vinegar to Richard Drake, " groom of the privy chamber," Pat. 36 Eliz. pt.
11 (March 23,1 584) and that to Thomas Wilkes for salt. See below, chapter on the
;
Salt Monopolies. Of royal favorites, Sir Walter Raleigh was perhaps the most
" Though he
liberally supplied. See Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia, 1 641, pp. 31, 32 :
gained much at court, yet he took it not out of the Exchequer or merely out of the
queen's purse, but by his virit and the help of the prerogative, for the queen was
never profuse in the delivery out of her treasure but paid many and most of her
servants part in money and the rest in grace which, as the case stood, was taken for
good payment."
2 C. R.June 5, 1590.
' Consult Hall, Society in the Elizabethan Age, for a picture of the corruption of
the time.
* Such at least is the inference from the clauses in the patents for reference
8 '

safely be constraed as a deliberate policy. Viewed in the most
unfavorable light, it can be regarded only as a vague and uncon-
scious encroachment upon the Uberties of the subjects, in an en-

tirely novel pohcy with respect to which legal precedents were
meagre and of altogether doubtful apphcation. What is apparently
the best explanation of the arbitrary protection of patentees is
more favorable. There is good ground for accepting the claim that
the protection against the law was a measure of temporary expedi-
ency, although this excuse was probably unduly pressed. To the
end of her reign, Elizabeth continued to display at least occasional
anxiety that her patents should exist only in conformity with the
law, as well as a general disposition to administer the patents with
as httle injury as consistently might be.^ Originally, decisions as
to grants and their provisions rested immediately with the queen
and her trusted minister Burghley; but the multipHcity of suits for
monopohes, and the growing appreciation of the disorders that
might result from injudicious grants, led in time to a greater care
in considering them, and the original practice was modified by
referring petitions to the law officers of the crown for a preliminary
examination as to their legaUty.^ The result was that many apph-
cations were never allowed to be presented for the consideration of
the queen. A significant letter to Robert Cecil complains, "And
now it pleaseth you to say that monopohes are hardly obtained."
In the latter part of the reign, ministerial responsibihty also began
to serve as a check. A disappointed inventor wrote in 1596: "I
hear by report there is a worthy gentleman . . . that hath now
the keeping of the great seal,* and these suits cannot pass but by
of disputes to the Privy Council; from the queen's promise in 1597 to submit the
patents to common law trial (D'Ewes, pp. 547) and from her proclamation of 1601
;
(Appendix J), in which she authorized any one to test the legality of the monopolies
without fear of her prerogative.
That the prerogative was something to dread is shown by the fact that, in the
Case of Monopolies, Fuller was able to cite only three patent cases from the entire
reign, and only two of these were common law cases the third was a Privy Coun-
;
cil case. Noy, pp. 183.

' C. R. December
23, 1578, March 22, 1586, June 20, 1596, January 11, 1597.
2 See Hulme, L. Q. R. January, 1900.
» Hist. MSS. Com. Cal. Salisb. Pap. iv, pp. 615,616 (September 19, 1594).
* The new lord keeper was Egerton, who became Baron EUesmere at the acces-
sion of James I.
9
his privity; and they say ... he hath ever been a great enemy to
all these paltry concealmentsand monopolies; and they further say
of him that to beguile him with goodly shows is very difficult, but
to corrupt him with gifts is impossible." ^
But it was more especially the peculiar position of the queen as a
Tudor autocrat which enabled her so long to pursue her monopoly
pohcy without interruption. Foreign dangers and relief from serious
internal strife guaranteed to the Tudors a loyalty so unquestioning
that there was no effective check upon royal encroachments so
long as it was apparent that the monarchs had at heart the general
good; and of this there was constant proof, especially in the reign
of Elizabeth. Chivalry and personal devotion also supported the
queen, and she repaid this support with sympathetic tact. If she
yielded sometimes to petty interests, her ambitions were wholly
national. She understood national prejudices and she knew with
whom political influence rested. Accordingly, she took the only wise
course in rehgious matters, respected the common law, hberalized
trade,and alhed herself with the gentry and commercial classes.
The power and skill of the Tudors were manifest in Parliament.
The membership of the House of Commons was doubled. Eliza-
beth added sixty-two new borough members. All these were hkely
to be strongly attached to the crown as long as commercial and
industrial interestswere cared for. The older rural constituencies
were very largely represented by lawyers resident in the metropolis.
Both economic and legal interests demanded extensive and effective
national government, and the result was a natural alliance between
the lawyers and traders. As long as these two interests were satisfied
the crown could count upon a Parliament free from opposition.
It was only after the Stuarts had openly defied both these interests
that Parliament began to be divided into consciously opposing

parties. When was one between the
the struggle came, the contest
prerogative and the commonand on the side of the law were
law,
ranged a majority of the gentry and the traders, representing the
grovnng middle class. The legal and economic conflicts were in-
extricably intertwined.
The Tudors, however, did not depend entirely upon good- will;
they had other resources. The initiative in legislation rested almost
' Harington, Metamorphosis of Ajax, 1596.
exclusively with the crown. Parliaments existed to vote supplies
and to give sanction to royal policies. The privy councillors nearly
all had seats in one or other of the houses, and the deference paid to
them enabled them to influence legislation very decidedly. Thus

under ordinary circumstances it was comparatively easy to silence
complaints and the queen did not hesitate to use her advantage.
In 1571, for instance, the Commons were directed to "meddle with
no matters of state but such as should be propounded unto them."
When, nevertheless, one of the members ventured to complain of
licenses and monopolies, he was summoned before the Council and
sharply reprimanded. At the close of the session, the " audacity and
presumption" of such behavior were severely censured.^ In 1593,
the crown renewed its contention ^ that the privilege of the House
was in saying"aye and no" and not "to speak every man what he
listeth or what cometh into his brain to utter." The question of
monopohes was again raised in the Parliament of 1597. A bill was

offered in the House of Commons "touching sundry enormities
growing by patents of privilege and monopohes," which was re-
ferred to a committee for investigation. This time the complaints
were more graciously heard, and redress of the grievance was
promised. At the close of the session the House directed that the
queen should be thanked for her "most gracious care and favor
in repressing of sundry inconveniences practised by monopohes
and patents of privilege." And the lord keeper replied ' to the
speaker, — "touching the monopohes, her Majesty hoped that
her dutiful and loving subjects would not take away her preroga-
tive, which is the chiefest flower of her garden and the principal
and head pearl of her crown and diadem; but that they will rather
leave that to her disposition, and as her Majesty hath proceeded
to trial of them already, so she promiseth to continue that they shall
all be examined to abide the trial and true touchstone of the law."
The final protest in Ehzabeth's reign came in 1601.* This famous

outburst of popular feeling is memorable as being one of the few
cases in which the queen was unable to stem the tide, though here,
• D'Ewes, pp. 141, 142, 151, 159, 175.

2 Townshend, p. 37.
' November 10, 1597, December 14, 1597. D'Ewes, pp. 554 ff. and 547.
* The last Parliament of Elizabeth opened October 27, 1601.
as in the few other instances of this sort,' she yielded with dignity.
It was not had been granted that a bill was
until a generous subsidy
offered^ which was described as "an exposition of the common
law touching those kinds of patents commonly called monopolies."
In the course of the debate which followed it was shown that the
deputies of the patentees were especially obnoxious by reason of
their high-handed and irresponsible conduct.^ Francis Bacon was
one of those who opposed the agitation, and he attempted to
defend the monopoHes as being both reasonable and legal. He
insisted that in considering the bill for defining the rights of the
crown with respect to patents, the Commons were encroaching upon
the prerogative. Other speakers followed, showing the distress
that was caused by the patents
for salt and other commodities, and
the annoyance of less important monopolies. Laurence Hide, the
author of the bill, in reply to Bacon defended the proposed measure,
citing a precedent from the time of Edward III. Respecting the
queen's prerogative Hide said, "As I think it no derogation to the
omnipotency of God to say He can do ill, so I think it no derogation
to the person or majesty of the queen to say so." At the close of
Hide's speech the debate turned largely upon the question whether
theHouse should proceed by petition or by bill. The conservative
members who advocated the former course were overborne by
those who showed the futility of further petition, for it was pointed
out that in 1597 petition had only resulted in a promise which had
not been performed. Sir Walter Raleigh, who held several mono-
poUes, in the course of the debate defended himself and his monopo-
lies, but offered to assent to their cancellation if it were desired by the
House. Bacon again argued against the bill, pointing out its incon-
sistency in making an exception in favor of corporations.* Fleming,
the soHcitor-general, attempted an explanation of the neglect of the
crown to make the reforms promised in 1597, but in answer to his
plea, a list ^ of patents which had been granted in the interval since
^ For two other instances, see Prothero, Statutes and Constitutional Documents,
1 558-1625, pp. xcv and 118-120.
2 November 18, 1601.
Townshend, pp. 224, 230.
3
* See Appendix H.
5 See Appendix E. This list, though inaccurate, was not challenged, and has
since been frequently quoted by those who have discussed the monopolies.
the last Parliament was exhibited. Secretary Cecil objected to the
citing of precedents from the time of Edward III, "when the king
was afraid of the subject." He rebuked the speaker for entertaining
bills directed against the prerogative, contrary to the injunction of
the queen, "for her Majesty's ears be open to all our grievances
and her hand stretched out to every man's petition." Finally he
urged discrimination between good and bad monopolies. He was,
however, unable to calm the agitation, and complained that the dis-
cussion was conducted in so unreasonable a mood that none could
get a hearing in favor of the patents. "This," he said, "is more fit
for a grammar-school than a parliament." At length the queen,

perceiving that Cecil and Bacon were unable to calm the storm
of opposition, and would very probably be unable to prevent the
passage of the bill, adopted a thoroughly characteristic course, and
sending for the speaker, she instructed him to inform the House that
she herself proposed to reform the abuses of the monopohes. ' The
Commons were content to entrust to her the redress of grievances.
Upon the reconcihation she at once summoned them to listen to a
speech, which was a masterpiece of eloquence and dignity, and in
which she avowed that her whole ambition as sovereign was that
she might be an instrument for her subjects' welfare.^ This speech
and the proclamation which she had issued against the monopohes,
according to her promise, were her last great pubhc acts.^ The
proclamation * summarily revoked the more obnoxious of the
patents, and those that remained were left to the common law free
from any clause of restraint, thus entrusting to the courts of law
the responsibihty of deciding what grants should be allowed to stand.
Within a few months the Queen's Bench was given an oppor-
tunity of laying down the law. As soon as the proclamation had
guaranteed immunity to those who sought to test the vaHdity of the
queen's patents, a London Haberdasher infringed the patent held by
1 Townshend, pp. 232-249.

2 November 30, 1601. See Appendix K, The "Golden Speech" of Queen
Elizabeth.
' " The principal good
Parliament has wrought is that patents for monopolies
this
are suspended, but this done by proclamation and not statute, because her Ma-
is
jesty's mercy and grace should be the more superabundant. You could not believe
what contentment the Commons receive at it." S. P. D. December 12, 160 r.
* November 28, i6oi. See Appendix J.
Edward Darcy and selling of play-
for the sole importing, making,
ing-cards. Darcy
instituted an action at law which has become
famous as the leading Case of Monopolies.' The case was argued
upon three occasions and the litigation was thus carried on till
Easter term, 1603,^ when the decision was handed down, just after
the queen's death. In the course of these proceedings, the chief
arguments on behalf of Darcy, the plaintiff, were made by Coke and
Fleming, the law-officers of the crown. On behalf of the defendant,
the chief argument was made by
For the prosecution it was
Fuller.
argued that the grant was good because playing-cards were not
legitimate merchandise, but merely a "vanity." It belonged to
the queen, by virtue of her prerogative, to take away the abuse.
The queen, was claimed, had jurisdiction over recreation in the
it
social interest, and she might at discretion either suppress entirely

or tolerate in part any vain amusements.' It was admitted that a
patent ought not to change the law, nor should it be contrary to
justice or common right; it ought not to impose upon the subject
"an unprofitable charge, . . . nor do wrong to the inheritance,
liberty, or trade of the subject; " but, inasmuch as the trade of card-
making was involved with "the vices of deception by servants of
their masters, and the misemployment of time which ought to be
applied to other industries and not to such enormities, the queen
might prohibit it by patent." ^ To arguments such as these it was
not difficult to find an answer. Fuller contended that it was not
malum in se for the subject to play at cards, but wrong only to those
to whom it was expressly prohibited by statute. He noted the fact
that the plaintiff, in his pleadings, had represented that he had
imported 4000 gross of cards "for the necessary use of the subject."
He also showed that this patent was rather a Hcense than a re-
straintupon card-playing. He argued that all patents concerning
the crown and subjects were hmited to the exposition and allowance
of the judges of the law, and that the judges stood "indifferent"
between the king and subject. Cases were cited proving that the
judges were not bound to construe grants in favor of the crown.
If the queen could not take i2d. from a subject, even to support
a war, without act of Parliament, much less could she take away
» Darcy v. Allen. ^ Moore, pp. 671,672, 675.
3 Coke, xi, pp. 84 ff. * Moore, p. 674
any moderate recreation from her subjects, without the same
authority; "for commonwealths were not made for kings, but kings
for commonwealths." ^ The one exception to the rule against
monopoly which Fuller admitted has become a legal classic. Here
was clearly stated, for the first time, the principle which has since
been the accepted criterion of the legitimacy of a patent: "Now
therefore, I will show you how the judges have heretofore allowed
of monopoly-patents, —
which is that when any man by his own
charge and industry, or by his own wit or invention doth bring any
new trade into the realm, or any engine tending to the furtherance
of a trade that never was used before; and that for the good of the
realm; —that in such cases the king may grant to him a monopoly-
patent for some reasonable time, until the subjects may learn the
same, in consideration of the good that he doth bring by his in-
vention to the commonwealth, otherwise not." ^ The decision in
the case confirmed Fuller's contention. It was held that all trades
that "prevented idleness" were useful to the commonwealth; that
there were three inseparable incidents to a monopoly: the price
would be raised, the commodity would deteriorate, and former
artisans would be impoverished, —
hence this monopoly was pre-
judicial to traders and others. It was declared that the queen
had been "deceived" in her grant and that the patent was a dan-
common law.^
gerous innovation, contrary to
The common law had thus proved an adequate remedy against
monopolies. Though legislation subsequently became necessary,
this was not to supply a deficiency in the law, but to reassert the
law which was being neglected, evaded, and defied.
' Noy, pp. 174-185. 2 Noy, p. 182. 3 Coke, xi, pp. 84 ff.
CHAPTER II
FROM THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES,

1603-1624
During the first few years of his reign, James I was little troubled
by parliamentary opposition to patents of monopoly. Shortly after
his accession, he published a proclamation ^ condemning the
monopohes and ordering their suspension until the Privy Council
could consider them. In March, 1604, James opened his first
Parliament and ended his speech with a protestation or an apology ''
for his conduct in the matter of gifts, honors, and rewards. In

form was an excuse for his lack of liberality, but his plea of pru-
it
dence and economy must have appealed strongly to the Commons,

as it was an indication of an intention to govern without lavish
bounty to favorites. With pledges of this sort, the House of Com-
mons was content and turned to subjects of greater urgency, such
as privileges of its own members, and the foreign trading com-
panies. Internal monopolies were neglected, owing to the confidence
that the difiiculties with respect to them would soon be adjusted.'
Sincere efforts were at first made to reform the abuses. An in-
tricate mechanism of investigation was devised, which, had been

if it
properly used, might have prevented most of the grants which were
inexpedient or legally doubtful. An important constituent of the
investigating machinery was the permanent body known as the
Commissioners for Suits, which was instituted soon after the king's
accession.* Of the commissioners. Sir Francis Bacon and Sir
' May 7, 1603. See Appendix L.

2 Pari. Hist, i, pp. 977 ff.
3 Pari. Hist, i, pp. 996 ff. ; C. J. i, pp. 218 ff.
* " An open placard concerning the causes of suitors to his .Majesty and their
Lordships wherein it is ordered that Tuesdays in the afternoon shall be appointed
for that purpose and that six of the Lords at the least shall meet to consider and
give answer to suitors that shall prefer petitions themselves [as well] as those that
shall be referred unto them from his Majesty; provided that they shall entertain
no suit whereby any cause depending in a court of justice may be interrupted,
;

Julius Caesar were the most prominent. They were on nearly every
reference, whether as members of the commission or not; and as
the public careers of both practically extended over the whole reign,
their connection with the patents was long and intimate. Bacon,
moreover, as attorney-general and subsequently as lord keeper,
came into contact with every patent that was issued in the latter
part of the reign. Other referees very frequently employed were
the Earl of Salisbury, secretary of state and later lord treasurer,
the Earl of Dorset, Salisbury's predecessor as lord treasurer, the
lord chief justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas, the barons
of the Exchequer, the lord admiral, the lord mayor and the re-
corder of London, the lord privy seal, and the lord chancellor. The
attorney- and were also often named on the
solicitor-generals
committees of reference, and had the subsequent duty of drafting
or seahng the patents.*
It was not long, however, before the true character of the king
was revealed, and it was seen how ready he was to yield to the
importunities of suitors, notwithstanding the elaborate machinery
which he had interposed between them and himself. As the grants
began to multiply, the opposition in Parhament became more
pronounced, and in the second session (January to May, 1606) the
patents of monopoly became one of the most important subjects
handled by the Committee of Grievances, a new political engine —
destined to give the early Stuarts much trouble and to make the
monopolies one of its most important concerns.^ At the opening of
the third session (November, 1606), the king attempted to satisfy
the Commons by an elaborate reply ^ to a petition which had been
submitted at the end of the second session. He insisted upon
retaining a few of the more obnoxious patents, as a matter of right,
unlessupon extraordinary occasion the same be referred unto them from his Maj esty
and for this purpose a commission under the great seal was granted." B. M. Add.
11402, May 30, 1603. In 1611 the commission included the following names:
Herbert, Caesar, Parry, Bacon, More, and Cope. Rem. June 27, 161 1.
' For referees, consult Lansd. 266 for the years 1603-15, and for subsequent
years, the Council Registers.
2 Among the patents considered in this session were those for the licensing of
wines, the preemption of tin, the importation of logwood, and the searching and
sealing of the new draperies. See C. J. April 9, 1606.
' See Petition of Grievances, S. P. D. July 7, 1610. See also C. J. 1, pp. 316-318.
TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 27
but promised considerate execution. The patent which was then
regarded as the most serious grievance, the grant to the Duke of
Lennox for the seahng of new draperies, was defended, but as-
surance was given that it would be subjected to the judgment of
the courts. On the seventh of July, 1610, shortly before the close
of the fourth session, anew petition of grievances was drawn up,
couched in respectful language but plainly manifesting disappoint-
ment at the unsatisfactory way in which the promises had been
carried out. The petition represented that the grievances formerly
complained of were not only not redressed but were exceedingly
aggravated. Particular remonstrance was made against the unwill-
ingness of the crown to fulfil its pledge that certain patents should
be judged in the courts. The strongest protest was directed against
the patent for the alnage of the new draperies. It was urged that
since the second session the abuses of the deputies of Lennox, in-
stead of being reformed, had increased without restraint or punish-
ment. "Disorders in the execution are so far from being reformed
that they multiply every day, to the great grievance and oppression
of your Majesty's subjects, and those of the poorer sort, who living
hardly upon these manufactures are by the forementioned dis-
orders greatly hindered and some utterly undone, as hath ap-
peared in the particulars presented unto us." ^
Three days later the
' S. P. D. July 7, 1610.

The original patent had been granted by Elizabeth, in 1594, to George Delves and
William Fitzwilliams. Their supervision included such fabrics as worsteds, bays,
says, fustians, and frisadoes. A subsidy was to be imposed upon them which the
alnagers were to collect for the crown, while they were to exact a fee for their seal-
ing. Defective draperies were to be destroyed, and a penalty was imposed for ex-
posing cloths for sale without seal. One of the new king's Scottish favorites, the
Duke of Lennox, " procured " the surrender of this patent and a new one was issued
to him, covering eighty new kinds of cloth. Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. September 16,
1605. The duke's deputies were charged with violent and unauthorized seizure
of cloths, with blackmail and extortion upon the poor, with exacting annual rents
from those in better circumstances and able to pay well for the privilege of being
unmolested. The deputies were also charged with instituting warrants and suits
with purely malicious purpose, and delaying, under pretext of pressure of business,
to search and affix seals to cloths of those who did not offer special bribes to expe-
dite the examination, — the delay causing ruinous loss, since owners were thereby too
late for the market times. S. P. D. August 18, 161 1. After the re-issue of the
patent, in 1613, complaint was made of a practice that had become common, which
must have defeated the public object of the search, for the deputies were said to
king replied to the articles of grievance in his usual style, and pro-
mised that lawsuits should be expedited. It was at this time that he
found itexpedient to publish his celebrated Book of Bounty, which, '^
later, was most adroitly used against him by the popular party. In
this he solemnly renounced all intention of granting fresh patents
of monopoly or privilege and forbade any to approach him with
projects; the law of England and his own royal pleasure were alike
opposed to such grants. How difficult it was to please the Com-
mons with his most solemn protestations, James learned in 1614
when his second ParHament found material and opportunity for
much discussion ^ upon the subject of monopolies. But this ill-
fated Parliament was dissolved before it had accomplished any-
thing.
The interval between the first and the third Parliaments of James
was characterized by the greatest diversity in policy and counsels.
The irregular methods of deahng with patents gave to them an
insecurity that impaired their potential or speculative as well as
their actual values, and this must necessarily have resulted in
diminishing whatever social usefulness they might otherwise
have had. Grantees constantly complained of the necessity of con-
testing projects that were being pressed in opposition to their own
privileges. In the notable case of the glass patents an annual rent
of the unusually large sum of £1000 was exacted, which was dis-
tributed in the shape of annuities or pensions to former patentees
whose rights were set aside.' In the case of a salt monopoly there
was an example of the opposite method of quieting differences.
A new patent was set aside and its promoter, in recognition of his
have resorted to the device of openly offering for rent stamps by means of which
drapers might seal their own cloths. Petitions and Parliamentary Matters, 1620-21,
Guildhall Tracts, Beta, no. 16 (old no. 25). (This document, the full text of which
I have reproduced in the Quarterly yournal of Economics, August, 1906, bears evi-
dence of the beginnings of the cotton industry in the latter years of Elizabeth.)
Abuses continued under this patent in the reign of Charles (S. P. D. 1628, cxxvi,
67, 68), during the Interregnum {Golden Fleece, by W. S., Gent., 1656), and later.
See Edward Misselden's letter, S. P. D. April 17, 1621, for similar sale of seals for
the old draperies.
' The Book
of Bounty has been republished, with comments on its history, in Gor-
don's Monopolies by Patents, 1897.
* C. J. i, pp. 472-506.The glass patents received special attention.
' C. R. July II, December 12, 1614. See below, pages 71, 76.
ingenuity in introducing improvements, was given a share in
a fresh concession, which was substituted for the original patent
enjoyed by the old patentees. At the same time, on the advice of
Lord Chief Justice Coke, a third patent was revoked as " void at
law," but a recompense for expenses was allowed out of the profits
of the renewed patent.' In several instances, after a patent cover-
ing a whole industry had been granted on the ground of a recent
improvement, it was found necessary to suspend for a time the
exclusive rights, owing to the inability of the patentees to satisfy
the market demands.^ The Council was not, indeed, successful in
binding itself. On one occasion, to cite a by no means isolated
instance, it resolved that "hereafter no petition be entertained
by this Board to the discouragement of the present patent." Yet
only a few years later the Council revoked a second and created a
thirdmonopoly in the same article.' Its opportunist policy is further
by the ready way in which patents were annulled "for
illustrated
reasons of state." The inconveniences that had arisen between
1590 and 1600 by reason of some of the patents had led to the gen-
eral introduction in subsequent patents of a clause providing for
*
revocation if they were found "inconvenient to the commonwealth."
' C. R. Febraary 27, 161 5.

* The Council authorized a commission to inquire into and adjust the price of
glass sold to the London glaziers who complained of excessive scarcity. C. R.
April 23, 1617. Isaac Bungar was licensed to continue temporarily his glass-mak-
ing, accounting to Sir Robert Mansell, the new patentee, who was unable to provide
the entire market. C. R. July 6, 1617.
' and Meysey, patentees, received their grant after divers thorough proofs
" Elliots
and have since expended much, —

their patent is now infringed by others, and Palmer,
a Dutchman, also seeks a patent for steel very prejudicial to the patentees and the
realm." ..." Resolved that hereafter, no petition be entertained by this Board
to the discWragement of the present patent." C. R. November 29, 1617. Later,
Elliots and Meysey complained of an infringement " contrary to an order at the time
Palmer's patent, fraudulently obtained, was cancelled." ..." Ordered that notice
be taken of the information and the attempts suppressed." C. R. May 12, 1618.
. . . But " upon complaint of the deputies of the United Provinces against the vio-
lation of free trade according to treaties, in the patent to Sir Basil Brooke, Kt.," an
investigation was ordered and the attorney-general was instructed to institute quo
warranto proceedings. C. R. July 2, 1619. Finally, the Privy Council voted to
further a petition for still another privilege for steel sought by Dr. Robert Flood.
C. R. September 27, 1620.
* E. g., see instructions to the attorney-general to insert clause for revocation by
any six of the Council, in the patent for smalt. B. M. Add. 11402, June 11, 1605.
In consequence of the opportunity thus afforded, the government
assumed an attitude that was as erratic as it was indulgent. Grants
which could be so easily revoked might be all the more readily and
safely passed, and, on the other hand, they were recalled whenever
this was demanded by expediency and especially by the neces-
sities of foreign diplomacy.' The reform in monopoly administra-
tion, the increased red-tape, from which so much had been hoped at
the beginning of the century, demanded for even partially effective
operation a watchful and conscientions supervision. This was
given by Lord Keeper Ellesmere, who in 1596 had asserted the
and under James continued to be the
responsibihties of his office,^
most uncompromising enemy of all suspicious projects and monopo-
lies. His removal from office, in 1616, was occasioned by his refusal
to sanction certain patents desired by the king's favorites.^ Bacon,

his successor, was guided by no similar moral or legal scruples, and
his complaisance produced its natural effect in a lax administration
of the system. The middle of the reign, therefore, marked a distinct
turning-point for the worse, both in the character and in the num-
ber of the patents.*
The king's disappointment over the withholding of parUamentary
' The Playing-card makers sought the office of searcher and sealer for Sir Rich-
ard Coningsby. The petition was referred to Suffolk, Northampton, and Worces-
ter, Treasury Commissioners, who approved, provided it should not prejudice the
French treaty. The Commissioners for Suits were satisfied on this point, and the
patent was issued. Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 21, 1616. Later, the Privy Council
announced the suspension of the patent and explained that " reasons of state"
made it " unwise to press the informations against the merchants trading to
France." C. R. December 20, 161 7. Similarly the Pinners' monopoly was prac-
tically nullified. See Unwin, p. 167, quoting C. R. October 23, 1618, and March 21,
1619. See also C. R. July 22, i6ig " At the instance of the deputies of the States-
:
General of the United Provinces, the Lords are required by the king to consider the
patent for prohibition of importation of pins contrary to treaties of free trade." . . .
" The attorney-general is ordered to bring in a Vfrit of quo warranto or scire facias
for avoiding of it."
See above, pages 18 and ig.

'
' S. P. D. February Gardiner, iv, pp. 3, 11.

23, 1614 ;
' " For proclamations and patents, they are become so ordinary that there is no
end, every day bringing forth some new project or other. In truth, the world doth
ever groan under the burden of these perpetual patents, which are become so fre-
quent that whereas at the king's coming in there were complaints of some eight or
nine monopolies then in being, they are now said to be multiplied by so many
scores." Chamberlain to Carleton, S. P. D. July 8, 1620.
TO THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES 3^
supplies in 1614,and the pressing need for replenishment of the

Exchequer, led to reckless and defiant financial expedients. If
Parliament would not grant subsidies, no effort should be made to

conform to its wishes, and thus, it was hoped, the crown might
gain more than by constitutional government. At the time of the
dissolution of the first Parliament in 1610, there seems to have been
a strong tendency among
the ministers to favor an independent
financial policy.Because of the temporary check to their schemes,
from the apparent inadequacy of their resources, the Addled Parlia-
ment assembled. But the attempt to conciliate the Commons had
failed, depriving the king of a parliamentary revenue that had
averaged £100,000 a year ' and the search for other sources of
;
revenue, monopolies among the number, was thereby greatly stim-

ulated. The
experience of Elizabeth's deahngs with monopolies was
repeated. So far as revenue from the patent system was concerned,
the attempt proved a complete failure. The most ambitious scheme
for supplying the Treasury from the profits of monopoly was the
alum project, which resulted so disastrously that the king was a
loser by many thousand pounds.^ The three projects of the Buck-
—
ingham ring* the licensing of inns, that of ale-houses, and the gold
and silver thread monopoly —
failed to contribute much if any-
thing to the Exchequer.' The subsidy of the new draperies yielded

the king only ;£ioo annually, and the contributions from other
patents were trivial in amount.* Thus, although James frankly
attempted to manipulate industries in the interest of his revenue,
his schemes were so ill-advised that regulation entailed greater
expense than it returned.
In 162 1 a new Parliament had to be summoned, and, with the
difficulties besetting the crown at home and abroad, the time
seemed propitious for the reforms which had so long been
' Prothero, p. Ixxxiii.

' See below, chapter on the Alum Works.
' See Gardiner, iv, ch. 33.
* Gardiner, in ArchEeologia, xli, p. 226, and in his History, iv, p. 21, in attempt-
ing to show how little was the fiscal gain from monopolies, really overstates
the annual Treasury receipts. Excluding the alum and glass rents, which yielded no
net profits, he estimates the crown revenue from the patents at about ;^900. His
authority is S. P. D. ex, 35, August 27, 1619, an obviously inaccurate exhibit.
Better statements in Somers, Tracts, ii, pp. 364-400, and Sloane, 2904, which
demanded in vain. A fair beginning was made in the proceedings
against the three patents of the Buckingham ring. Of these Sir
Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell were the most active
agents, though they long had the support of their principals, the
Duke Buckingham and his two brothers. Sir Edward and Chris-
of
topher ViUiers. The House of Commons investigated the abuses
under each of the patents in turn, and excitement rose so high that
Michell was ordered to punishment, by so illegal a procedure that
the Commons were obliged to retract and allow him to be punished
by the upper House. He was degraded from knighthood and perpet-
ually excluded from pubhc office. Mompesson escaped punishment
by flight, but the duke and his brothers, on account of their power
and influence, avoided impeachment. The three obnoxious patents
were revoked by proclamation, and, shortly after the close of the
session, eighteen other monopolies were cancelled while seventeen
were offered to the test of the common law.'
The opposition to the monopolies in 1601 had done little or nothing
outcome of the struggle
to discredit the ministers or officials, but the
had demonstrated how difficult it was to attack the monarch in
person. Now that it was once more possible to urge grievances, the
leaders of the popular party took the course which proved to be the
effective one, passed over the irresponsible head of the state and
turned against his responsible agents, the officers of state and the
referees. The public men who were thus attacked had doubtless
miscalculated the force of opposition, but they could not have been
surprised that was directed against them, for most of them had
it
anticipated it which they took to satisfy themselves of

in the pains
the legahty of the grants which they authorized. In the impeach-
ment proceedings an institution was revived which had lain dormant
since the days of Henry VI. Michell and Mompesson were only
contemptible offenders, but the indignant Commons did not stop
are also for the year 1619, agree with each other, and harmonize with Harl. 3796,
for the year 1616-17. Alum, glass, and gold and silver thread rents were
fol. 68,
not net gains ; the imposition on sea coal and the subsidy collected on the new
draperies were taxes whichwould have been levied even if there had been no monopo-
lies. Hardly ^50 was annually derived from the true monopoly rents.
' See Appendix O. The account here given of the proceedings in the Parliament
of i6zi is based upon Gardiner's History, iv, chs. 33-3S, and his Four Letters of
Lord Bacon in Archaeologia, xli.
here. They ordered an investigation into the conduct of the referees
of the obnoxious patents,and it was only after both James and
Buckingham had solemnly disavowed the excesses of the nominal
patentees and promised redress that the proceedings against the
referees were allowed to drop. It is, however, well recognized that
the impeachment of Bacon was very largely inspired by the ill-feel-
ing toward the man who was most responsible for the objectionable
patents, because of his advice as attorney-general, his favorable
opinions as referee, and his sanction as lord keeper and lord chan-
cellor.
In the second session, at the close of the year 1621, the House
of Lords threw out a bill against monopolies,* but this appeared
to be from no unfriendliness to the purpose of the measure; the
objections were merely based upon its form, which was thought to
be unflattering to the king.^ Hope was therefore felt that a bill
would soon be passed through both houses. As far as it is possible
to judge from the meagre reports ' of proceedings in the last Parlia-
ment of this reign, the Statute of Monopolies was passed in both
houses without much difficulty except as to its form. The results
of the final conference of the joint committee of the two houses
were adopted by the Lords on the twenty-second of May, 1624,
and by the Commons three days later.*
Just as the promises and plans of reform in the matter of grants
were the last parliamentary achievements under Elizabeth, so the
Statute of MonopoHes was the final legislative achievement of the
reign of her successor. This was not only the last, it was the most
important law passed under King James.^ Its significance was not
so much due to radical innovation as to the emphatic parliamentary
sanction which it gave to principles already accepted at common
' L. J. December i, 162 1.
2 L. J. December 3, 162 1.
' L. J. iii, pp. 261-412 ; C. J. i, pp. 670-794. Consult indices, art. "Monopolies."
< L. J. iii, pp. 400 b; C. J. i, pp. 794.
5 " The legislation of James I did little more than follow out the lines laid down
by his predecessor. His Parliaments spent much more time in the defense of their
privileges and in discussions which led to no immediate legislative results. It does
not follow from this that their work, regarded from the constitutional point of view,
is less deserving of attention. In the time of James I it was more essential to
assert constitutional principles and to maintain parliamentary rights than to pass
new laws or to create new institutions." Prothero, pp. Ixii-lxiii.
law. The preamble Book of Bounty had
recited that the king's
stated "the ancient and fundamental law" against monopolies.
The statute then declared that all monopolies, commissions, grants,
licenses, charters, and patents for the sole buying, making, working,
or using of any commodities within the realm were contrary to law.
It was furthermore insisted that the vahdity of all grants should be
determined according to thecommon law practice, and the penalties
of praemunire were invoked against all who should attempt, by
procuring any order or warrant, to stay the execution of the judg-
ment of a law court. ^ The important exceptions, however, which
were authorized by the opened a new chapter in the history of
act,
the monopolies.
' The text of the statute is given in full in Appendix A.

CHAPTER III
FROM THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT,

1624-164O
The Act of Monopolies excepted several classes of grants from

its condemnation. It sanctioned monopolies of new inventions for
fourteen years, and of these a very considerable number were granted
by Charles I, patents for new processes being particularly numer-
ous.' With these privileges the crown did not particularly concern
itself after passing them. Their poHtical importance lay in the fact
that it was possible by virtue of this exception to continue the
practice of reducing settled industries to monopolies under cover
of technical improvements. Existing monopohes also, some of
which were named, were not to be prejudiced by the
specifically
statute if they had been granted for new inventions for not more
than twenty-one years. This reservation the Privy Council inter-
preted as a direct sanction for the particular monopohes named, and,

on this pretext, quashed legal proceedings to test the legaKty of
these grants,^ although the statute had explicitly directed that they
should stand in the same position as before the statute, "and not
otherwise." It is true that suits at law in such cases had been for-
bidden before the enactment, but there was certainly no authority

for emphatically claiming the warrant of the statute.
The act of 1624 was, however, weakest in its failure to grasp
the significance of the trend of monopoly toward corporate form.

From the accession of Ehzabeth to the Civil War there was a process
of gradual extension of monopoly privileges from a single individual
to a group formed into a partnership or into a company. The

usual form toward which the monopohes moved in their organiza-
tion was that of a rudimentary joint-stock company. While the
one-man monopoly was thus expanding in its organization, the com-
' Consult Specifications-calendar for the years 1625-1640.

2 See below, page 77.
panics of craftsmen or masters during this period were contracting,
exchanging individual for collective trading, and subordinating
the many to the rule of the few. Thus the companies, whose con-
nection with the past was theoretically continuous, and the patentees,
who had had their origin since the accession of Elizabeth, ap-
proached one another in many of their most essential points, till
in the reign of Charles the distinction between charters and patents

lost practical significance. With the assimilation in organization
there went a corresponding assimilation of function. The com-
panies existed theoretically for regulation, while the patentees were
became of
originally authorized for exploitation, but this difference
lessand less importance, for as the patents multiplied they tended
more and more to encroach upon established industries where
most part, only be regulative; while
their intervention could, for the
on the other hand, the companies, as they tended to become more
rigidly exclusive, aimed at industrial exploitation. Thus, as will
appear in the following pages, the Soapboilers' Company of West-
minster was an incorporation of a group of patentees originally
formed an invention; but they soon took over the regu-
to exploit
lation of all soapmaking and thus virtually secured a monopoly
of all soap production. On the other hand, the Company of Lon-
don Soapboilers, who were incorporated to buy out the West-
minster Company, were originally a group of independent masters,
but after purchasing their right to reenter upon their trade, they ex-
ercised their rights of search and apprenticeship in such a way as
to concentrate the production of soap in a few hands, and it would
appear that even within the Company the trade was organized
under a small group of merchants.' This growing likeness both of
organization and of function between patent and charter privileges
was due primarily to economic causes, —
partly to the inherent cen-
tripetal tendency of privilege, partly to the need of capital. It was
owing to the latter cause that the simple organization of a mo-
nopoly under a single head had to be expanded into a corporate
concern in which the capital was furnished by a number of persons.
It resulted from both the former and the latter causes that the
companies of small masters found it either expedient or necessary

' See below, chapter on the Soap Corporations ; The Soapmakers' Complaint,
cited on page 126; also S. P. D. [August 23], 1653.
TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 37
to allow their industries to be subordinated to the few who either
within or without their organization were able and ready to con-
tribute the necessary capital. The partiaUty of Parhament for the
old order, its prejudice in favor of the industrial security and
independence of the small master, blinded it to the fact that
the arbitrary protection of companies of craftsmen was a policy of
monopoly in disguise, and the privileges of these companies were
therefore exempted from the condemnation of the statute.
It will be remembered that in 1601 Bacon had pointed out the
inconsistency of the parhamentary bill which made an exception
in favor of corporations.^ The crown, no less than Parliament,
was bent on protecting the small masters, but it favored these
monopolies on principle and not as an exception. When, therefore
the statute exempted the companies of craftsmen, the reactionary
royal poKcy was continued under the name of Corporations. The
companies of the normal sort, growing out of the craft gilds, owed
their origin to municipal recognition, frequently confirmed by royal
charter. Their jurisdiction in any case continued to be only local.
But, even before the enactment against monopolies, there had
arisen, under crown patronage, a new group of companies enjoy-
ing a national rather than a local jurisdiction. These not only owed
nothing to municipal recognition, but very generally aroused local
hostiHty. The London records during the reigns of James and
Charles constantly bear witness to the opposition which these
crown patronage excited on account of their encroach-
creatures of
ment upon chartered liberties of the city, and the hindrance which
their exclusive privileges gave to older companies. A single illus-
tration will serve to show was not the act of 1624 which first
that it
occasioned the creation of masters' companies to take over national

monopolies. The Starchmakers' Company is a good early example
of the Stuart policy of erecting corporations with a narrow and
exclusive membership, but with such wide powers as to subordinate
an industry throughout the whole country to the direction of a few
men in the metropoHs. The incorporation of this company was
not accompHshed without some difficulties. The projectors desired
a charter sanctioned by king, courts, and Parliament.^ The judges
were unofficially consulted but would not approve the charter with
' See above, p. 21. ^ Titus, B, v, fol. 249.
exclusive privileges unless the making of starch from wheat flour
were prohibited by act of Parhament. But a bill brought into
Parliament was indefinitely committed after second reading, and
itwas necessary to be content, therefore, with the royal sanction
alone. This was secured by a bargain, in accordance with which
the following arrangement was effected. A proclamation was issued
declaring that great mischief had resulted from the late queen's
revocation of the starch monopoly, and the manufacture was thence-
forth to cease.' Then a subsequent proclamation authorized the
manufacture in certain houses under the supervision of commis-
sioners.^ Shortly afterward the London starchmakers concerned
in the project were duly incorporated on the conditions which they
proposed, commissioners were appointed, and an imposition was
laid upon foreign starch.^ The Grocers protested vigorously against
the Starchmakers' Company.' They showed that great incon-
veniences were resulting from the monopoly in a few hands of the
manufacture of starch, prices having been doubled; they appealed
to the traditional right of a freeman of any London company to
exercise any trade. Frequent proclamations were issued to re-
affirm the prohibition to all not of the company.^ Like many of the
corporate monopolies of the period, this one had a checkered
career. It was suspended in 1610, and all domestic manufacture
forbidden." This prohibition caused even more complaint than the
monopoly, especially from the Grocers, and the attempt at its en-
forcement was apparently soon given up. Within two years it was
proposed to reincorporate the illicit manufacturers.' In 1619 a
commission was issued to license some of thosewho were disobey-
ing the proclamation,' and in 1622 the Starchmakers' Company
was reconstituted by incorporation of the hcensees, notwithstanding
the protests of the Grocers and the city of London."
' S. P. D. Add. (1606?), xxxviii, 105.

* S. P. D. Cal. August 23, 1607. Proc. Book, p. 151.
' S. P. Docq. October 21, December 23, 1607, March 14, 1608.
< Rep. February 4, 1608 Rem. February 5, 1608.
;
" For example, R. O. Proc. Coll. no. 8, July 5, 1608.

' Proc. Book, pp. 220, 232. January 10, May 21, 1610.
' Lansd. 152, fols. 118, 120, 122, 124, 128.
' Grant Book, p. 285. June 16, 1619.
• R. O. Proc. Coll. no. loi. May 16, 1622.
Incorporation, however, reached its climax after the act of
1624, and especially during the policy of "Thorough" from
1635 to 1640. One was to reduce to com-
of the boldest plans
pany management and regulation all the traders in the suburbs
of London.' All traders and artisans who did not already belong
to a company were to be obKged to join the new company. En-
trance fees and fines were established and, not least important,
rents for the crown. There was to be a general restraint upon all
from exercising any trade, unless free of this or of some London
company. The scheme had for its excuse the jealousy and friction
which always existed between the members of companies and their
rivals, who settled in the suburbs free from company jurisdiction
and drove their trade unhampered by rules. Three other projects

will serve to illustrate the attempt to centraUze the regulation, if
not the production, of certain articles. The Playing-cardmakers

in London and within a radius of ten miles were incorporated,
with the right of search throughout England. Whatever card-
makers were without the corporation would fall in the general
fate of all independent producers whose work was subject to the
inspection and sealing of competitors. A rent of 12s. per gross was
reserved to the king, and another 12s. per gross was to be exacted
as a fee for sealing. Later, the king undertook to engage directly
in the business. By the new indentures, the king covenanted to
purchase of the company a weekly quantity of cards. The king
expected to sell at an advance which would yield him £5000 or ;£6ooo
annually.' Similarly, the London Silkweavers, incorporated in
1631, were allowed by their charter of 1638 to extend their control
over the whole kingdom. This was a more serious matter than in
the case of the Cardmakers, for Canterbury was one of the oldest
centres of the silkweaving industry. The Canterbury and other
silkweavers were required to join, or be "translated" to, this com-
pany, which was to enjoy a rigid monopoly, in return for which the
company was to pay a rent of 8d. per lb. from native weavers and
1 2d. per lb. from resident aliens. It was agreed that the broad
' S. P. Docq. April 8, 1636; Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. February 24, 1637.
2 S. P. D. May 15, 1637, October 18, 22, 1628; S. P. D. cccclxxvii, 64, Feb-
ruary, 1641; civ, 62, 1629; clxxxv, 18, February 17, 1631 ; Docq. April, 1637;
Unwin, pp. 144, 145.
loom, recently invented, should be suppressed.' The case of the
Pinmakers of London and England and Wales was an attempt
to reconstitute a company originally chartered under James in 1605,
after which date there had been a series of attempts to attain mo-
nopoly privileges,^ until at last the Pinners' Company had been
granted the preemption of all pins imported, as well as the sole
right of manufacture in London and its vicinity.' These privileges
were, however, shortly afterward suspended to conciUate the
Dutch, and the company was not revived uiitil 1635, when a new
charter of incorporation was granted, conferring the usual rights
of searching, seaUng, and making ordinances. Importation was
now strictly forbidden. It was stipulated that the price of pins
should not be raised.^ By this charter, all the pinmakers of the
kingdom were subordinated to the London company. The mo-
nopoly was still more thoroughly concentrated in 1640, when the
king himself undertook to supply capital to the extent of ;£io,ooo,
but he farmed this function at once for ten years." The results of
the schemes here described were very meagre. In most instances
a derangement of the industry affected was the only outcome.
Having War, it was im-
their inception so shortly before the Civil
possible that many
them could have had even a fair trial. Some
of
corporate monopohes which had more vital strength are reserved
for treatment in subsequent pages, while those here considered are
of interest chiefly as exemplifying the comprehensive pohcy of
industrial control which the crown and Council endeavored to
administer.
Except upon fiscal considerations, it is difficult to see how the
most thorough of reactionaries could have sanctioned the unpre-
cedented extremes to which corporate regulation was carried in
many cases. But Charles was dependent upon unparhamentary
' Docq. May, 1631, May, 1638 S. P. D. [August 25], 1639. It is interesting to
;
note the statement that the tax levied by the king upon the weavers was shifted
by them upon their workmen, by the practice of keeping more apprentices and by
paying lower wages.
2 See Unwin, pp. 164-171.
8 Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 22, 1618.
< See above, page 30.
' Docq. August, 1635.
' Docq. April, May, 1640; C. R. March 18, 1640.
:
TO THE LONG PARLIAMENT 4^
revenue even more than his father had been in the years from 1610
to 1620, for between 1629 and 1640 there were no Parliaments
nor subsidies. The promotion of corporations was simply one of
many shifty devices for raising money independent of parliament-
ary supplies. This purpose was in some measure attained, since
the monopolies which Charles created were, much better calcu-
lated to yield revenue than those that were established in the two
preceding reigns. Charles did not confine himself to the practice of
charging fixed annual rents, but, wherever possible, levied a small
fee on each unit of sale. In the case of established industries now
upon the and preventing abuses brought under
pretext of reforming
corporate control, a revenue proportional to output would be con-
siderable. The companies thus constituted furnished the machinery
necessary for collection, and a tolerably vigorous set of agents, at
no expense to the king. Not only were the monopolies granted
largely in the fiscal interest and the rents accordingly made the
chief concern, but a new policy was adopted in the sale of privileges.
The policy was new at least in the thoroughness with which it was
carried out. Previously, some initial profit may have been occasion-
ally and incidentally derived from the granting of privileges, but,
until the period of personal government under Charles, there had
been no bold and undisguised practice of putting concessions up
at auction with the deliberate purpose of exacting the highest bribes
that could be realized. While, however, considerably more money
flowed into the Treasury from this source than formerly, it is not
to be supposed that the royal receipts at all corresponded to the
amounts that were paid for the privileges. The statement of one
who wrote within two years of the king's death suppKes a terse
explanation of what actually happened: "He was held the bravest
commonwealth's man that could bring in the most money, yet the
king's private purse or public treasury little or nothing bettered,
but to impoverish and vex the subject and to no other end: for
which he was ordinarily rewarded with honor." ' A more explicit
statement ^ comes from a moderate royalist who did not attempt
to conceal the faults of government under the king's personal rule
'
Welldon, The Court of King Charles, ii, p. 41, in reprint of i8i i of Secret His-
tory of the Court ofJames I.
' Clarendon, History of the Rebellion-, Oxford, i888, Bk. I, § 148.
"Projects of all kinds, many ridiculous, many scandalous, all very
grievous, were set on foot; the envy and reproach of which came to
the king, the profit to other men, insomuch as of ;£2oo,ooo drawn
from the subject by these ways in a year, scarce ;£i5oo came to the
king's use and account." The inherent weakness of the personal
government could not be better illustrated than by this quotation.
The government was an irresponsible one, and there was no effec-
tive check upon the dissipation of funds. The king reigned without
accountability, and to do this he required the connivance of at least
a few to carry out his wishes. These were in a position to draw

from him, unchallenged, the larger proportion of all that arbitrary
measures could collect.^ Yet, notwithstanding his failure to con-
trol the collectors, Charles managed to gain from the monopoUes
far more than his predecessors had done. It is impossible to esti-

mate what was received from the sale of charters and from the
charges imposed upon units of product, but the total could have
been no inconsiderable amount. At the end of the period of personal
government, there is evidence as to the income from the monopolies.
The alum industry had come to yield modest rents ^ instead of en-
taiUng expense as heretofore. The wine hcenses brought in ;^3o,ooo.'
The tobacco licenses, expected in 1626 to be worth ;£i325, were
producing ;£i3,o5o.^ Soap yielded ;^30,825, of which ;£29,i2S came
from the company in the metropoUs.* No other monopoly paid as
handsomely, but some returned very fair incomes. An annual
revenue of fyô was received, for instance, from playing-cards and
dice." In all but name, an excise system had been established, which
imposed substantial indirect taxes upon internal trade.
' Compare Pym's remarks in the Short Parliament :

" Such illegal things are
badly accounted for to the king, whereas legal things will soon be discovered if not
accounted for. Besides, in monopolies and such like the third part comes not to his
Majesty's coffers, as to instance in that of wines. The king hath only ;£'3O,000 per
annum upon them, whereas the wines in the gains by the patent come to ^^230,000,
and the same proportion holds monopolies hereby it appears how
in all the other ;
much the subject is damnified and how

the king gains." Pari. Hist, ii, pp.
little
549 ff. (Clarendon evidently understated the net revenue from the monopolies.)
* Egerton, 2541, fol. 266; Harl.
3796, fols. 75 ff. See below, page 99.
' Pym's estimate of the king's revenue from the wine monopoly was confirmed
by a semi-official estimate of the following year. Egerton, 2541, fol. 266.

' B. M. Add. 34318, fol. 40 ; Egerton, 2446, fol. 14; 2541, fol. 266.
^ Egerton, 2541, fol. 266. * Egerton, 2541, fol. 266.
Charles did not shirk the responsibility which he assumed in his
vain attempt to govern without the assistance of Parhament. The
pohcy of "Thorough" was not an empty platitude. The king
himself set the example by his careful attention to the affairs of
government. He was regularly present at the now very frequent
and well attended meetings of the Council. In the proceedings
of this body the monopoUes commanded a considerable share of
attention. That it was not more successful in dealing with them
was due in part to the fact that it was distracted by other schemes
which promised more revenue, but called for more of its labors, —
notably by ship-money. It was due in part also to an old difficulty,
— its dependence upon the good- will of the local authorities.' The
latter difficulty was partially solved by the increasing resort to

Star Chamber proceedings, by which the councilors could punish
offenders with heavy fines which discouraged infringements, at the
same time that they helped to fill the exchequer. In the reign of
Elizabeth the Star Chamber had been looked upon "not as an
instrument of tyranny but as the guardian of order, while even in
that of James I a very large part of the business that came before it
arose from suits brought by private persons," ^ though in this reign
were heard complaints of abuses of Star Chamber jurisdiction.'

Under Charles, however, the resort to this tribunal was carried to
unprecedented lengths.* It was the purpose of gaining Star Chamber
" The Lords are sorry to find that the benefit which his Majesty intended his
people .should turn to their prejudice, which would not have happened in case
. .
magistrates and other officers of justice had been as careful in the execution of his
Majesty's directions as his Majesty was to publish them." C. R. June 13, 1634.
2 Prothero, pp. cvi, cvii.
" " Indeed, the world is much terrified with the Star Chamber, there being not so
littlean offence against any proclamation but is liable and subject to the censure of
that court and for proclamations and patents they are become so ordinary that
;
there is no end, every day bringing forth some new project." Chamberlain to Carle-
ton, S. P. D. July 8, 1620.
* Hyde wrote that the Star Chamber " extended its jurisdiction from riots, per-
jury,and the most notorious misdemeanors, to an asserting all proclamations and
orders of state, and to the vindicating illegal commissions and grants of mono-
poUes." Clarendon, .^/rf. Bk. Ill, p. 262. Pym complained in the Short Parliament :
" Great courts do countenance these oppressions, as to instance in the court of Star
Chamber advancing and countenancing of monopolies which should be in stead of
this great council of the kingdom ;and the Star Chamber is now become a court of
revenue ; ... It was not usual for mtum and iuum to be disputed there. The privy
jurisdiction that led to the promulgation of the large number of
proclamations in support of monopolies,' contempt of the royal
by disregard of a proclamation, furnishing a
prerogative, expressed
pretext fordeaUng with the infringer in that court/ The penalties
there imposed were very severe,^ and, if the political situation had
made possible the unrestrained exercise of this engine of enforce-
ment, infringment might have been effectually prevented.
The Council was constantly beset with urgent demands for the
councillors should be the lights of the realm . . . but now if these councillors should
so far descend below themselves as to countenance, nay even to plot projects and
monopolies, what shall we think of this ? Surely it is much beneath their dignity.
This is a grievance, but I must go higher. I know that the king hath a transcend-
ent power in many cases, whereby he may by proclamation guard against sudden
accidents ; but that this power should be applied to countenance monopolies (the
projectors being not content with their private grants without a proclamation) is
without precedent." Rushworth, ii, p. 1138; Pari. Hist, ii, pp. 549 ff.
' The revival of the practice of legislation by proclamation, under the Stuarts,
was based upon the specious claim of the prerogative. Such legislation had once
been authorized by a statute giving the force of law to the king's proclamations, 31
Hen. VIII, t. 8, but this act was repealed by i Edw. VI, c. 12, § 4. Proclamations
continued to be employed to amplify statutes, but the only proclamations making
entirely new law, which retained parliamentary sanction, were those regulating the
course of foreign trade. 26 Hen. VIII, c. 10.
A Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber (temp. Charles I) relates that foreign
trade under Henry VII and Henry VIII was governed by regulation of Star
Chamber, where summary jurisdiction gave prompt and inexpensive relief. But
now the merchants are so haughty they must govern their own trade and therefore
lose a great help. The Merchant Adventurers and Hansards prospered while they
leaned on the strong arm of the state, but now not being able to defend them-
selves, have devised a means of protection, by obtaining letters patents under the
great seal, reinforced by proclamation. Infringers are then informed against in Star
Chamber as for breach and contempt of proclamation. (The undertakers for tin
under Prince Henry, against Dunning and other Pewterers, were the first to resort
to this.) But direct dependence on Star Chamber would settle and govern trade
better, and free the king from " much clamor which ariseth from the multitude of
grants and erecting of new companies tending to monopolies, which if the former
course were observed would either never pass, or being passed upon such public
examination, would take away all clamor from the king." Lincoln's Inn MSS.,
Coxe, xc.
2 For cases, see Rushworth, ii, App. (Report of Decrees in Star Chamber, 1625-
II,
37), pp. 31, 34, 41, 69, 70, and Gardiner (Camden Soc), Star Chamber Cases.
82 ;
3 It was customary to remit a considerable portion of each fine, but on this
account it became usual to make the fine so high that it would be large even after
the reduction. In some monopoly cases, the customary mitigation of fines was not
granted. See below, page 120.
recall of certain grants, most of which were definitely upheld after
inquiry, although some were suspended for a time.^ Finally, in
1639, fearing to meet the Parhament which soon had to be called
with the grievance of the monopolies still unremedied, and dis-
trusting the device that had done good service before, the promise —
of allowing the patents to be put to the test of the common law, —
the Council by a single act revoked a long list of patents, Ucenses,
and commissions.^ A few orders ^ were subsequently made, sup-
plementing the original order of revocation. It may have been
hoped that by such decisive action public attention would be di-
verted from some cherished patents that were purposely omitted
from the orders, but these did not escape the vigilance of Pym,^
and the Committee of Grievances placed the monopohes first on its
hst of abuses relating to property." A dissolution soon put an end
to the dehberations of this "Short Parhament" and the monopohes
figured as one of the "evils and dangers" in the state in a petition
for a new Parhament, presented to the king at York by a dozen
peers. ° On the third of November, 1640, the Long Parhament
assembled. The principal speeches against the monopohes were
made by Pym ' and Colepepper.' Several members resigned or were
' C. R. April 14, 1631, a promise to Lady Richmond that in the investigation
about farthing-tokens, her interests will be regarded. April i, 6, 1636, iron-marking
patent considered. June 24, 1636, patent for sealing bone-lace suspended. Febru-
ary 19, 1637, refusal to revoke patent for marking iron. February 28, 1638, patent
for leaden seals for new draperies revoked. December 19, 1638, salt revocation
refused. May 30, September 16, 1638, refusal to revoke the patent for lamperns.
2 C. R. March Ult. 1639. See Appendices Q and R.
= C. R. April 5, 28, 1639; April 12, 1640.
* Pari. Hist, ii, p. 549, April 18, 1640.
5 Pari. Hist, ii, p. 561, April 22, 1640.
« Pari. Hist, ii, p. 586.
' Pari. Hist, ii, pp. 641, 642.
' Rushworth, iv, p.
33, ascribes to Colepepper the following speech, and gives
commentaries explaining the allusions " These men, like the frogs of Egypt, have
:
gotten possession of our dwellings, and we have scarce a room free from them.
They sup in our cup, they dip in our dish, they sit by our fire we find them in our
;
dye-vat, wash-bowl, and powdering-tub they share with the butler in his box, they
;
have marked and sealed us from head to foot. They have a vizard to hide the
. . .
brand made by that good law in the last Parliament of King James they shelter ;
themselves under the name of a Corporation they make bye-laws which serve their
;
turns to squeeze us and fill their purses."

expelled ' in pursuance of a resolution disqualifying any monopolist
from sitting in the Commons.^ A large number of the
House of
monopolies were "called in" by the Long Parhament, which, in
cancelUng them, boldly assumed a function that hitherto, with rare
exceptions, had been jealously forbidden by the crown. It was
distinctly an encroachment by the legislature upon executive func-
tions, and in normal times would have been considered a most
unjustifiable and dangerous innovation. But the justification lay
in the very unusual circumstances of the time which prevented
either the crown or Parliament from adhering very closely to con-
stitutional precedent. With this action of the Long Parliament, the
internal monopolies ceased to be a poUtical grievance, though
agitation still continued to be directed against the commercial
monopohes. Some domestic privileges were not immediately
revoked, and some were allowed to continue throughout the In-
terregnum, but they no longer possessed pohtical interest.
' The from the House of Commons had begun
practice of expelling monopolists
in the first session of 1621. March 21, 1621.
C. J.
2 Resolved " That all projectors and monopolists whatsoever or that have any
;
share or have had any share, in any monopolies or that do receive, or lately have
;
received, any benefit from any monopoly or project or that have procured any war-
;
rant or command for the restraint or molesting of any that have refused to conform
themselves to any such proclamations or projects are disabled by order of this
;
House to sit here in this House; and if any man here knows any monopolist, that
he shall nominate him that any member of this House that is a monopolist orpro-
;
jector shall repair to Mr. Speaker that a new warrant may issue forth or otherwise, ;
that he shall be dealt with as with a stranger, that hath no power to sit here."
Pari. Hist, ii, p. 651.
PART II
INDUSTRIAL HISTORY
PART II. — INDUSTRIAL HISTORY
CHAPTER IV
THE MINERAL COMPANIES
The preceding pages of political history have had reference to the

monopolies as a system; they have dealt with the origin, develop-
ment, and perversion of the policy, and with the struggle to over-
throw the system. In other words, the patents have been treated
as a whole, and the arrangement of chapters has followed a simple
chronological order designed to study the fortunes of the privileges
in general, at successive periods. The object of the following pages
is to trace the results of the monopoly policy in the development of
industries, and here a different order of presentation is desirable.
These results can better be ascertained by the topical study of a few
of the more important industries than by scattering attention over
the entire field. The selection of monopoHes for this discussion has
been guided, by two considerations: first, to choose only those
which were established with the avowed purpose of stimulating
particular industries; and second, to take only those with respect
to which it is possible to construct a fairly continuous narrative.
The eight industries here considered have been chosen therefore
which their history
entirely without reference to the conclusions to
might lead; but these chapters have been made as circumstantial
as possible, in order to furnish a substantial basis for a judgment
as to the economic influence of the monopolies.
The Mines Royal.

The "royal" mines constituted one of the earliest of the Eliza-
bethan monopohes. Negotiations were commenced as early as
1561 with Steynberg, a German, and Thurland, master of the
Savoy, for the purpose of opening up certain mines in England.*
'
S. P. D. July 16, :s6i.
Indentures were drafted but not passed until a royal commission
had been appointed ^ to inquire into the mineral resources of the
kingdom. Presumably after a favorable report, a patent was
granted^ on the tenth of October, 1564, to Houghstetter ' and
Thurland. The patent reserved for the first six years a tenth of
the precious metals as royalty. It conferred the sole Kcense to dig
and quicksilver in the northern and western
for gold, silver, copper,
counties of England and in Wales, with power to purchase land and
to take up workmen at reasonable wages, and the sole use of any
instruments or tools not used in England within the last twenty
years. Shortly after this the patentees were freed from all obHga-
tions for the payment of subsidies and fifteenths.* Numerous other
privileges were given them, such as the use of the queen's timber
for building and for fuel,^ a commission to apprehend disorderly
persons in their employ," the privilege of licensing a tavern at their
works,' and to erect houses for lodgings on the moors.^ Meanwhile
Thurland had spent so much in his search for metals that he was
arrested for debt and had to appeal to the crown for relief." He
asked for an incorporation and permission to give shares to Pem-
broke, Leicester, Cecil, and Duckett.^" Work had already begun
on a copper mine in Cumberland,*' and, to facihtate the work, the
queen allowed Steynberg to borrow five hundred crowns from
the Fuggers, upon the security of her agent. Sir Thomas Gresham,
to be used in introducing twenty German miners into England."
Thurland, though deeply in debt, continued to write of the progress
of the enterprise " until the coveted charter was obtained." From
the time of the incorporation there is little suggestive evidence
' Lansd. 5, no. 47, July 8, 1563.

^ Pat. 6 Eliz. pt. 3; S. P. D. September, 10, 1564; Pettus, Fodinae Regales, p. 49.
' A German introduced into the enterprise. For further particulars concerningthe
Houghstetter family, consult Ehrenberg, Das Zeitalter der Fugger, Jena, 1896, i, pp.
212 ff., 234, 252, ii, 46 ff., and Hamburg und England, Jena, 1896, p. 4, n. 6 ; see also
below, pages 53, 61.
4 S. P. D. April, 1565. « S. P. D. July, 1565.
» S. P. D. July 27, 1565. ' Pat. 8 Eliz. pt. 3.
8 Pat. 8 Eliz. pt. 5.
» D. July 30, 1565.
S. P.
'» S. P. D. xxxvi, 95. " S. P. D. September 2, 1565.
" S. P. D. E. Add. xiii, 32 S. P. D. September 1566 (xl, 73, 74).
;
" S. P. D. October 7, November ii, 1566, March 7, September 29, 1567.

" Pat. 10 Eliz. pt. 9 (May 28, 1568).
THE MINERAL COMPANIES $1
as to the work of the company until 1597, when Steynberg and

Houghstetter wrote ' to Robert Cecil from Keswick that the works
were very low, and that the seasons had been wet, spoiUng their
peat. They prayed for indulgence, showing that they could not
go on successfully till an assessment had been levied. A "stock" of
.£2000 should always be on hand, they said, and that they had not
had.
In 1599, the Privy Council wrote to Lord Scrope,^ directing him
to investigate the condition of the work. "Great cost," they said,
"had been bestowed upon the copper works of the royal mines near
Keswick, far above any commodity that has come to the company
by them; for their desire was that her Majesty and the realm might
be served with that commodity to make ordnance, rather than stand
to the courtesy of strangers who served the realm as they pleased.
The managing of the works has been hitherto committed to strangers,
who pretended to have dealt plainly with the company, yet are
thought to have sought more their own private lucre than the bene-
fit of the company which, nevertheless, remitted great sums of the
rent due by them encouragement to continue the work."
for their
In the next year the accountant of the works at Keswick sent in a
statement ' of the finances of the enterprise :
—
The whole cost for the past thirty-seven years had been . . . £104,709
Sales of silver, lead, and copper equalled 68,103
The queen's royalties amounted to . . ... 4)5oo
And the loss to the company arid others was .... 27,000
A new patent was asked, and request was made that those who
would not share in the contribution of ;£iooo needed to replenish
the work might be excluded from the company. A charter, with the
clause desired, was granted in the second year of James I.^ At
this time the governors of the company admitted by impUcation
that nothing had been accomphshed under the first charter.^

The company apparently did not even attempt to accompUsh
anything under its second charter. It continued to exist, and its
shares had perhaps more value to the holders than they had enjoyed
'
S. P. B. July 18, 1597.
'^
S. P. D. June, 1599, cclxxi, 40.
3
S. P. D. December 23, 1600. ' See Pettus, pp. 63, 64.
5 S. P. D. Add. Febraary 12, 1605.
under Elizabeth, for the society now into a mere settled down
privilege-monger. It still had valuable
which were worth privileges
maintaining, for it was vested with the monopoly of metal-mining
in Wales and the north of England. Private prospectors were there-
fore obhged to come to terms of agreement with the company.
Leases were granted by which the real adventurers undertook all
the costs, and assumed responsibility in addition, for rents, to the
king and to the society.' Thus the monopoly tended to discourage
mining enterprise by levying a toll upon profits for purely private
advantage. Meanwhile there was no compensating pubHc advan-
tage contributed by the individual members, whom the charter
was designed to encourage. They seem to have been content to
leave enterprise entirely to others. "There is none of that com-
pany that advances any works that I can learn," wrote Malynes in
1622.^ The society did not even perform the service expected of
it, in regulating the mining industry vvathin its jurisdiction. The
overworked Privy Council intervened to set down regulations for
prospectors, and the crown arranged for leases to adventurers
independently of the company."
While indifferent to most undertakings, the society was ready to
claim its rents from important concerns. The operations of Myddle-
ton and of Bushell constitute the most successful achievements
under its auspices.* Neither of them received any help from the
company but paid heavy rents solely for the privilege of operat-
ing. Hugh Myddleton took a lease from the society in 161 7 and
paid a rent of îfio per annum in addition to royalties to the king.^
He carried in Cardiganshire, where mines
on extensive operations
had been already, but unsuccessfully, worked. He cleared and
drained the mines, and within a few years succeeded in producing
silver in considerable quantities, which was coined at the Tower of
London." And in recognition of this and other services he was
knighted.' The king also confirmed and prolonged his lease and
' Pettus, pp. 76-78.
' Lex Mercatoria, pt. z, ch. ;:.
' See calendars S. P. D. 1623-28, article " mines " in indices; R. O. Proc. Coll.
Jas. I, p. 121 ; C. R. July 19, December 30, 1623.

* For other mining enterprises subject to the Company of the Mines Royal see
Malynes, Lex Mercatoria., pt. 2, ch. 2.
' Pettus, p. 33. ' Harl. 1507, no. 40. ' Sloane, 4177.
THE MINERAL COMPANIES 53
remitted the knight's fee.' From 1620 to 1636 it was said ^ that the
mines yielded on the average one hundred pounds of pure silver
weekly, and the larger quantity of lead had of course a higher total
value. Myddleton is commonly supposed to have made a large
profit here, but the statement ' that he gained ;£20o per month must
have been an exaggeration. As late as 1623 the works were not on
a remunerative basis, and the king wrote ^ to Myddleton not to be
discouraged, but to continue his mining operations, "which would
be rewarded in due time." The profitable period of the venture
must have been between 1623 and 1631, when Myddleton died.
After his death the mines "were again drowned and decayed." ^
The restoration of the Cardigan mines and works was due to
Thomas Bushell. His attention was called to the possibilities of the
Welsh mines, and he sought from King Charles a commission to
restore and operate them under direct crown patronage. But "his
Majesty, for some reason to himself known, declined the same"
and "commanded" Bushell to purchase the lease still held by
Myddleton's widow. Bushell accordingly secured the lease, pay-
ing Lady Myddleton ;£400 in cash and £,&po per annum for rent
during the remainder of the term of her lease. granted a The king
confirmation of the transfer, promised " any act of grace or assist-
ance" that might be needed, and gave warrant to the attorney-
general for Star Chamber proceedings against any who should
hinder Bushell. At his first entrance upon the work he found it
very discouraging, for the mines were flooded. But he was urged
by Joseph Houghstetter and other mining experts in his employ
to persist, and after working four years "night and day," and with
an expenditure of ;£7ooo, he claimed to have succeeded. From his
own description, it is evident that he was the first to deal success-
fully with the problem of deep-mining. His predecessors had only
worked near the surface or on hillsides where adits could drain
the mines, and their pumps had been very crude and insufficient.
Bushell, however, began working at the lowest levels and cut
through the main rock a hundred fathoms perpendicularly, employ-
'
S. P. D. October 19, 1622 ; February 21, 1625.
2 S. P. D. October 22, 1636.
3 Pettus, p. 33.
* S. P. D. March 31, 1623.
< Certificate of Joseph Houghstetter et al. in Bushell's Tracts.
ing German methods, "chargeable yet certain," and hitherto
unknown in Great Britain; and he drained the mines by means of
the chain-pump. He was almost, if not quite, the first to succeed
in reducing ores with the use of coke. His method of mixing rich
ores with poor but more fusible ones in the smelting process was
also a decided advance. At the expiration of Myddleton's lease the
work was charged with a heavier rent. Before Myddleton's death
the Privy Council had taken advantage of its increasing responsi-
biUty for the administration of the mines, and had deprived the
society of its jurisdiction over the Cardigan works, and they were
reserved for the direct interest of the king.' Therefore, when the
lease fell in, Bushell had to make a new contract with the king, at
an increase of ;îooo in the rent, and paid beside a gratuity of a
thousand marks. He also undertook to farm the customs from the
export of lead. His operations as a whole appear to have been
moderately successful, but they did not make him rich. Bushell
was one most successful of the numerous men who contrived
of the
to maintain cordial relations with the successive governments in the
troubled years from 1640 to 1660. To each in turn, whether out of
power or in power, he "had always been" unswervingly loyal. For
Charles I he equipped six thousand troops, according to his own
statement made in 1664, and in other ways had contributed to the
royal cause out of the profits of his mines and local mint, and the
king in 1643 recognized his services over his own signature. Bushell
was forced to desert his mines and take refuge in the isle of Lundy,
which he held for the king. In 1646, "having obtained his Majesty's
consent," he accepted the bargain offered by the Committee of Both
Kingdoms, and surrendered the island to the parliamentary party
on condition of being restored to his mines. In the next year the
sequestration of his property was removed by a parliamentary
ordinance, and he resumed his works and came into cordial relations
with the popular party. He received a patent from the Protector
Cromwell, February 16, 1654, which was renewed by Richard
Cromwell, February 5, 1659. At the Restoration, he petitioned for
indemnification for his expenses on behalf of the late king, and for
his loss by the sequestration of his property for twenty years by
"the usurper Cromwell" on account of his loyalty to the king. He
' C. R. December 30, 1623.
also sought protection from his creditors for two years, hoping in
that time to recover from the works enough to repay his debts con-
tracted on the king's behalf.*
An appropriate conclusion of this survey of the operations under
the society of the Mines Royal is furnished by a writer of the Resto-
ration whose statements never underestimated the prosperity of the

mines :
—
" By the death of the first German artisans,and the neglect of a
continued stock, and the want of fuel, and the succeeding wars, all
those mills and works siand ready, though much out of repair, for
^
the ingenuity of the present incorporators or others."
The Mineral and Battery Works.
Simultaneously with the organization of the Society of the Mines

Royal, another company was formed with similar privileges in the
eastern and southern counties. William Humphrey of the royal
Mint associated with a German, Cornelius Shutz, who bound him-
self ^ in ;îo,ooo to teach his arts to the English. They received,
jointly, two patents in 1565, one for mining gold, silver, copper, and
quicksilver in specified counties,* and the other for lapis calaminaris,'

or calamine stone, a zinc-bearing ore which was used in conjunction
with copper in the manufacture of latten. During the first year the
patentees were active in their search for mines and in assaying.*
Arrangements were also made for the erection of wire works, and these
were reported ready, with a weekly capacity of 25 cwt.^ This enter-
prise from the outset was more interested in manufacturing than
in mining. The projectors indulged in relatively little speculation,
and they did not entertain any illusions as to the immediate success
of their undertaking. "Years may pass before any profit can arise,"
wrote Humphrey to Cecil.' Humphrey and Shutz, and their silent
' For Bushell's undertakings, consult fust and True Remonstrance, 1642 : The
Case of Thomas Bushell, 1649; Bushell's Abridgment, 1659; and supplementary
notes in Bushell's Tracts. See also Diet. Nat. Biog. article " Bushell."
2 1670. Pettus, p. 32. ' S. P. D. August 16, 1565.
* Pat. 7 Eliz. pt. 9 (September 17, 1565).
^ Pat. 7 Eliz. pt. 8 (September 17, 1565); see also 8. P. D. xxxvii, 40-44.
• S. P. D. November to, 27, 1565 ; June 14, 30, November 7, 1566.
' S. P. D. July 23, 1567. * S. P. D. November 22, 1567.
partners, received a charter of incorporationat the same time with '
the other mineral company, and shortly afterwards Humphrey

took advantage of the incorporation by proposing to levy an assess-
ment upon those who had accepted shares in the company.^
The chief work of the company was its wire industry at Tintern
in Monmouthshire. The Tintern works were operated on succes-
sive contracts. During the incumbency of Sir Richard Martin as
governor of the company, he is said to have gained £900 a year by
taking the contracts himself. This was about the year 1584. Sub-
sequently, he farmed the works to Hanbery. In 1592, the prosperity
of the work was so great that Martin was able to farm it to others
at £1000 a year. But the new farmers found that Hanbery, during
his incumbency, had secured control of the mines of Monmouth-
shire which produced the only good Osmond iron used at the Tin-
tern plant. He had also "engrossed" the woods around about and
charged the new farmers exorbitantly for all their fuel; and the
iron which he furnished was of inferior quality, so that "Flemish
wire was now better than English." For four years, in consequence,
the works yielded no profit, and although Martin had been able
to farm them out, it was only at :£55o.' Shortly after this certain
persons enticed away some workmen from Tintern Abbey, and with
their help set up and began to operate wire works at Chilworth in
Surrey. They also employed engines claimed to be an infringement
of the company's privileges. A prosecution was instituted in the
Exchequer against the infringers, Thomas Steere and others, in
' Pat. 10 Eliz. pt. 9 {May 28, 1568). The privileges of the company covered all
their future inventions. A case arose concerning the lead miners of Mendip, who
used a sieve and furnace claimed to have been invented under the auspices of the
company. An injunction was obtained in 1574 and another in 1581. The case was
tried in the Court of Exchequer, whence a commission was appointed to investigate.
It was shown that the lead miners had previously used substantially the implements
in question. The claims of the company were denied by the court, though a slight
improvement was admitted to have been introduced. The court, however, held that
it was " easier to improve than to invent." This was the first of the legal decisions
upon the difficult question of improvements. The three cases cited by Fuller in the
case of Monopolies were all questions of improvement, where the attitude of the law
was rigidly in favor of the older workers. Lansd. 24, nos. 45, 46; 56, no. 47 Exch. ;
Decrees and Orders, Mich. 17 Eliz. Noy, pp. 173 ff. Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896.
; ;
2 S. P. D. July II, 1568.

' Lansd. 75, nos. 87, 90; 81, nos. 5, 9 (March, June, 1596).
1603. A
commission was appointed and depositions taken ' which
showed that Shutz's invention of drawing wire by water-power
had been adopted by the infringers. The reply of the company
to the defendants' pleadings was a long one, which furnishes a
circumstantial account of the work of the society. It sets forth that
before Shutz came to England all wire-drawing had been by unaided

human strength, "in the Forest of Dean, in the country of Gloucester,
and in the north parts." Most of the wire came from abroad, and
wool-cards were imported ready finished, for wire-drawing was too
expensive under the old processes. After the estabhshment of the
works at Tintern, so much was produced that it was necessary to
export to Turkey and elsewhere, and frequently £3000 worth lay
unsold as long as a year. (This at least was the statement of the
plaintiffs, though from it one might suspect that the quality was not
good enough for the English market.) The company introduced

many skilled workmen from abroad, two of whom received each
;£8o per annum in wages. The plaintiffs offered in argument before
the commissioners that although they had enjoyed >their patents
for about forty years, "they have not yet received back out of the
profits thereof and thereby, not one half of the money that they
and their predecessors had laid out about the same works." The
infringers had a great advantage over the company, because they
operated nearer London and thus had less cost of carriage. But the
plaintiffs contended that to remove their own works in order to
compete on equal terms it would be necessary for them to join in

the destruction of woods near London, and at the same time throw
out of employment "many thousands" of handicraftsmen in Wales,
Somerset, Wilts, Devon, and Cornwall, and in the cities and towns
of Bristol, Sahsbury, Exeter, Bath, Gloucester, and Worcester, who
were engaged in drawing and workiiig up the wire made at the
works. Judgment was given against Steere, but the court adopted
the rough-and-ready justice of requiring the victorious plaintiffs to
buy up the stock and tools of the defendants and to take Steere into
^
their employment at reasonable wages.
A few years before the settlement of this suitParhament and the
crown joined in a new policy of bolstering up the industry. The
' Exch. Dep. by Com. (Hil.) 2 Jac. I, no. 12.
2 Exch. K. R., Mem. R., Trin. 4 Jac. I, 61.
reverses of the enterprise, resulting from trouble at the works and
the competition which had to be met, had brought a demand for
protection of the wire-drawing industry many thousands and its "
of poor" employees. The governors of the company added that

the wire which they produced was better than that made abroad,
and that EngUsh wire was consequently exported to France and
returned to England in the form of card- wire.' It will be recalled
that for another purpose the company argued that it should be sup-
ported against Hanbery, because foreign wire was better than the
Enghsh.^ But Parhament was easily convinced by a mercantihst
argument, and in 1597 an act was passed prohibiting the importation
of wool-cards,' the principal product manufactured from Tintern
wire. The ostensible reason for the prohibition was that "false
and deceitful" wares were introduced by the Dutch and Germans.
Mercantihst argument, however, was resourceful. A quarter of a
century later, was asked for wire as well wool-cards. The
protection
act of 39 Eliz. been evaded" by the manufacture, within
"has lately
the realm, of cards made of imported wire! ^ The petition was re-
ferred to the Privy Council and by that body to specially appointed
referees.^ The result was a proclamation forbidding the importa-
tion of iron wire, for "English wire is made of the toughest and
best Osmond iron, —
a native commodity," and is better than —
foreign wire, especially for wool-cards. ° Until shortly before the
resort to protection, the wire works had enjoyed a moderate measure
of prosperity. The gains had been steady, even though small, both
in revenue and in markets, and an industry had been estabhshed
which was strong enough to survive the inertia and mismanage-
ment of the early part of the succeeding century and the disorders
of the civil war. It may therefore be reasoned that by the display of
some energy the enterprise might have held its own in the face of
foreign competition. But protection was an easier remedy and was
accepted as a convenient substitute for enterprise, and thereafter
no material progress was made. The explanation which was given
by an interested party for the stagnation of the industry was that
the protection was not thorough enough. "By reason of the acts
' Lansd. 52, no. 22. * See above, page 56.

'
39 Eliz. c. 14. * S. P. D. September 4, 1629.
5 S. P. D. April 2, 1630. ' R. O. Proc. Coll. 6 Car. I. no. 123.
of Parliament made against importing foreign wire are something
imperfect, and for other reasons," the works "afford little: to
which also the society will doubtless have more regard, because it
concerneth somewhat the good or ill of the clothing manufacture,
by the exportation of our wire, and the importation of foreign wire." *
The patent for calamine stone lay unused for nearly twenty years.
Some foreign workmen were introduced to start the industry, but
they accomplished nothing, and the Battery Company soon devoted
its entire attention to the iron wire works. But in 1582 there was
an opportunity to license the latten wire manufacture. John Brode
of St. Giles- without-Cripplegate contracted to pay ;^so per annum
during fourteen years for the privilege of setting up this industry.
At Isleworth in Middlesex he also spent ;£35oo in order to "bring
it to perfection." After eight years of experimenting he succeeded
in "establishing" the industry, manned with EngUsh workmen.
He claims to have been the first to make English latten strong
enough to withstand water-driven hammers. He also bought up
all the available deposits of zinc-bearing ore or calamine stone. The
company claimed that he did not maintain his rents, and that he
kept his process secret. When his lease fell in, in 1596, the com-
pany farmed the works at ;^400 to others. It was at once complained
that Brode was hindering the new farmers in their purchase of
calamine, and an order was obtained from the Privy Council com-
manding Brode to furnish calamine for the work at reasonable
prices. Ten years later he was still seeking payment for the materials
thus supphed and for redress for his losses.^ Such real progress as
was subsequently made in this industry seems to have been ilhcit.
A London Pevrterer, in some way, probably on account of the

who
inertia of the company, contrived to evade its monopoly for twelve
years, invested heavily in a plant for manufacturing latten wire,

and introduced many foreign workmen. He sold his product for
,£6 per cwt., but when Lyndsey farmed this industry from the com-
pany, he proposed to sell the same product for £8 or £10.' Lyndsey's
hope of success involved the fortunes of the Pinners. He engineered
' Pettus, pp. 32 ff.
2
Lansd. 81 nos. 1-4; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. iv, 117, House of Lords supple-
mentary calendar, 1605.

3 S. P. D. May 24, 1639.
6o ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
their project for a monopoly in his own interest. As a result of his
efforts, the Pinners Company of London was granted a monopoly

of the English market for pins on condition that ' they would make
their pins of wire furnishedfrom his works, although foreign wire
was better suited to the manufacture of pins.^ The arrangements
under this contract were never carried out, for the Long Parlia-
ment, which met in the following autumn, made it impossible to
pursue the plans agreed upon. In 1665 the copper used in England
was entirely imported, the English being still dependent upon the
Dutch and Swedes for their suppUes of copper and most of their
brass, while Welsh zinc was exported in the ore.' A contemporary
petition of the brass manufacturers shows that the Swedes under-
sold the EngUsh who attempted to revive the latten works, and,
after they had command of the market once more, raised the price.
A countervailing duty, the petitioners claimed, would cause plenty
of rough copper to be brought in."
In judging the merits of the two mining monopolies, full credit
may be given to the worthy motives that originally inspired them.

Their creation was due to the feeling on the part of the crown and
the ministers that it was economically and strategically important
to develop the mineral resources ^ of the kingdom. They knew
that to do this was necessary
it to offer adequate inducements to
foreign master-workmen to bring into the country the metallurgical
arts of the continent. They took the obvious means of encourage-
ment, and, so far as the mere introduction of industries was con-
cerned, they accomplished their purpose. That the means they
adopted were perhaps not the most suitable, that at any rate the
privileges granted were too extensive, was an error due to lack of
experience. It must be remembered that these two concessions
were the first important patents of monopoly. Many lessons were
> C. R. March i8, 1640.

' " It was necessary to harmonize these two jarring monopolies by subordinating
them both to a higher conception of mercantile policy. The possibility of maintain-
ing a steady market for unsatisfactory English wire was dependent on the possibility
of maintaining a regular demand for unsatisfactory English pins." Unwin, p. i58.
' Dudley, Meiallum Martis (p. viii of the epistle to Parliament), 1665.
' The petition is reprinted in Stringer's Opera, p. 157.
* See Cunningham, ii. pp. 53-63, in 3d ed.
1
learned from these concessions, and subsequent grants were naturally

made with more precision. In a review of the results of these two
monopolies, it is evident that their object was accomphshed in
some degree, for the industries thus introduced were permanently
established within the country. Particular kinds of technical skill
were transmitted from the alien workmen to the Enghsh, who at
least kept the spark alive until a more favorable time. They
formed the nucleus, indeed, of the work-masters who revived the
metallic industries of a later date. They had acquired sufficient
familiarity with such work to qualify them for introducing further
improvements. But, having stated this much to the credit of the
monopoHes, some qualifications are necessary. Admitting that met-
allurgical arts were naturalized by means of the monopoHes, it
must be stated that the fact had little importance at the time, nor,
indeed, till long afterwards. The chief mineral resources of the
realm, tin, lead, and coal, were unaffected by the societies. Copper
and zinc were the metals which chiefly concerned the societies, but
in the production of these they contributed and exacted much. little
The form of the privileges was most unfortunate. Such rigid

monopoHes went far toward defeating their own end. That they
were broader than was necessary to tempt the foreigners to intro-
duce their arts, or to encourage natives to finance them, is de-
monstrated by the fact that neither of these companies availed
themselves of all their rights, but reserved many only for special
exigencies, to save themselves from troublesome competition. Priv-
ileges directly proportional to actual undertakings would probably
have been as tempting as perpetual grants covering all mines in the
country, for Shutz was content to develop his wire-work, and
Houghstetter, according to tradition,' soon dropped his active con-
nection with his company and retired into Wales, where he founded
a family. On monopoHes in the hands
the other hand, the grant of
of two companies which did not exercise them tended to discourage
enterprise and adventure outside the companies. The societies had
most to gain by confining their attention to a few concerns which
enjoyed a close market. Outside the monopolies it was discour-
aging to operate, for the companies were ready to suppress or levy
tribute upon any undertaking which proved successful.
' And cf. above, page 53.
CHAPTER V
THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS
Theordinary sources of information as to the results of the six-

teenth and seventeenth monopohes are ahnost silent as to the many
privileges that were granted for mechanical inventions. The fact
is that no one of the inventions of this character proved of
single
firstrate importance. In the aggregate, they represent a fair state
of mechanical activity, some ingenuity, and considerable teachable-
ness. They Englishmen were ahve to the value of
indicate that
technical improvements, and that they were introducing them from
all sources —
domestic and foreign. The whole period was one
of great industrial expansion, and it was this condition rather than
a system of governmental encouragement that caused the unusual
exercise of mechanical ingenuity. In the mechanical progress that
took place the patents were not leading factors. Some of the most
successful mechanical innovations of the period did not enjoy any
patent. The patent system could not create ingenuity, which is
dependent upon far deeper influences than are at the command of

government. The influence of the patents was at best indirect.
The mechanical inventions which were of the greatest importance
were for draining and water-raising. The
influence back of the
various pumping and draining was the mining activity in
devices
the various parts of the country. The operations of the two mining
companies, and of the lessees under them, have already been noted.
Several mining interests which antedated 1560 were beyond their
control. In all these the problem of deep mining was becoming an
important one. At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was
believed that the Newcastle coal supply was nearly exhausted,'
for by that time the surface deposits had been pretty well worked.
During Elizabeth's reign, deep-shaft lead mining was tried with-
out success, although considerable sums of money had been staked
' Proceedings Arch. Inst. Newcastle, 1852, p. 186.
THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS 63
upon the venture under Bevis Buhner, one of the most resourceful
engineers of that reign.* In iron mining an attempt at draining
was made in 1573,^ but nothing is known of the results. In tin
mining there is positive information of attempts at deep shafts and
drainage,' and there may have been some slight relation between
these attempts and the increase in production about the middle of
the seventeenth century. About one fifth of the inventions that
were patented between the years 1620 and 1640 were for various
water-raising and draining devices, showing not only the relative
importance of the problem of improved drainage at this time, but
also the great activity in attempts to meet the growing economic
need.^
It is noteworthy that the accounts of mining enterprise, as well
as the patent rolls, point unmistakably to the conclusion that
the improved appliances in mining were introduced by Germans.
The engines commonly used for water-raising in the coal mines of
England in the seventeenth century were those which were known
on the continent in the sixteenth century.^ The two mining corpo-
rations owed their charters to the introduction of Germans and
the most important mining operations that were ever conducted
under their leases were carried out by Bushell, who stated that his
success was due to German methods.* The patents for drainage
themselves confirm the evidence from the mines, by the German
names of many of the patentees, as well as the frequent direct state-
ment as to the place of origin of the " invention." Among other such
patentees in the sixteenth century were Burchsard Cranick, Daniel
Houghstetter, John Synnerton, and Peter Morris, all of them either
German or Dutch, who patented inventions for water-raising and
drainage.' It is less easy to discover the chief agents of activities
1 Bushell's Abridgment.
2 Pat. 15 Eliz. pt. 5 (October 28, 1573).
' Patents, December 31, 1562, June 22, 1563.
^ Specifications of Letters Patent for Invention, 1617, nos. 3, ig, 21, 29, 34, 37,
42, 48, 49, 50, 57,66, 67,76, 84, 105, no, 114, 117, 125. These patents were issued at
quite regular intervals, usually one a year.

5 Gallovfay, Annals of Coal Mining and Coal Trade, 1898, pp. 152, 153, 157.
Compare Agricola, De re Metallica, 1559.
8 See above, pages 53, 54.
' See Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, January, 1900.
of this sort in the seventeenth century, because the preference for
conferring privileges upon natives led to the practice of petitioning
for grants in the name
an Englishman. But as England looked
of
to Germany, High and Low, for all her technical progress, it is to
be inferred that a majority of the patents were of continental origin.'
It is probable, therefore, that there was little native mechanical
genius in England. There were, to be sure, professional men of

genius, but though men like David Ramsey and the Marquis of
Worcester ^ invented new things by the score and by the hundred,
they cannot be considered industrial leaders. The latter, indeed,
probably invented Httle in the modern sense of the term "inven-
tions." In that period it is a significant fact that the popular and
even the legal meaning of the word "inventor" covered not only
the originating but also the importing of technical ideas and pro-
cesses.^ Indeed, imitation of the foreigner was a much more im-
portant factor than "native wit." The latter long found its chief
scope in adapting foreign devices to domestic conditions. But this
eager, imitative apprenticeship bore its fruit in the following cen-
tury when English mechanical skill, joined with scientific genius,
furnished the tools for the Industrial Revolution.
In passing judgment upon this group of patents the motives are
easily disposed of. None of the patents were more free from any
on the part of the crown. The rents or
suspicion of selfish interest
fees it is clear that it was the intention
were merely nominal, and
to grant them to the persons justly entitled to them. There is some
reason to suspect that in the Stuart days this intention was occa-
sionally defeated by rogues near the throne, who, hearing of a pro-
ject, contrived to secure a privilege for themselves,* perhaps with
the purpose of extorting bribes from the only persons to whom
such a privilege could have a working value. In other cases, how-
ever, patents were quite legitimately granted to natives for ahens
in order to meet popular objections. These grants corresponded
in motive and character to the industrial patents of our own day,
' This indebtedness was remembered as late as the eighteenth century, when, for
instance, the ribbon loom was still called a " Dutch loom."
' Consult Specifications, and also A Century of Inventions by the Marquis of
Worcester, 1663.
^ See above, p. 24, and Appendix H.
• See, e. g., S. P. D. July 1610, Ivi, 47, 48.
THE MECHANICAL INVENTIONS 65
and if any exclusive privileges were justifiable on the ground of
social utility, these probably were. They deprived no person of
any rightful occupation; they surely did not confer rewards dispro-
portionate to the value of the inventions. Whether the public gained
or suffered by them is, of course, a question which depends entirely
upon the results. The paucity of evidence respecting them is a
reasonable warrant for concluding that there were at least no grave
pubHc abuses in their exploitation. But there were certain tempo-
rary circumstances which rendered their social results more ques-
tionable than is the case to-day. Contrary to what might on first
thought be supposed, the conditions of the sixteenth and seven-

teenth centuries were in some respects less suitable for a patent
system than are modern conditions. For every advantage by way
of encouragement that a special privilege gives, there are certain
disadvantages to those excluded by the patent. A patent system
is justified only when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
With industry highly specialized this may easily happen. An in-
ventor of machines may set himself to supplying his product to

all who it of him.
will take Hence none who will buy need go
without. But this is far from the situation of the seventeenth cen-
tury. Markets were not wide enough to permit an inventor to
devote his whole attention to the production of a machine of a
certain pattern. Indeed, we hear of no workshops in England
where machines were made for sale.* An engineer or producer con-
trived or adapted a particular machine for a particular need. If
he secured a patent, his rivals were Ukely to go without, unless they
infringed his grant, since he could not afford to be drawn aside
from his main work to produce for his rivals. An attempt was
made to obviate the difficulty by conferring the sole right to license
others to use an invention. But a successful inventor had no desire
to hcense his rivals, and he did not need to, for there was no genuine
specification published. He could therefore still keep his invention
secret. Thus the patent had only the advantage of safeguarding the
inventor to some extent against the danger that his invention might
be discovered. Indeed, as might have been expected under the cir-
cumstances, the most successful mechanical apphances, with a few

exceptions, were not patented at all. The patents that were taken
> But cf. above, page 4, note 2.
out were for inventions of minor or doubtful value. The important
mechanical inventors were not without government aid, but they
took it in a more comprehensive form than a mere grant for
an appUance. Their work, therefore, did not depend upon the
encouragement of the patents for invention. Mechanical skill was
directed largely toward mining, water supply, and drainage, and in
all three of these directions the incentive was the concession of
substantial privileges of exploitation, rather than the mere pro-

tection of technical processes.
CHAPTER VI
THE GLASS PATENTS
A POOR form of window glass seems to have been made in England

in the fifteenth century, and was said to have been in use by the
common Green bottle glass was also made in the region
people.
of the Sussex iron works where sihca and potash were easily
obtainable.' In the early part of the sixteenth century there were
numerous glass makers in England, some of them natives and some
from the Low Countries and Venice.^ Their product was in the
main of a very coarse variety.' The finer forms of drinking and
crystal glass, as well as most other glass wares, were imported as
expensive luxuries by the glaziers.^ In 1567 a patent was granted to
Carre and Becku (alias Dolyn), who had come into England as a
result of the Low Country disorders and had erected three glass
works, promising to introduce the Lorraine art.'^ But the patentees
were merchants rather than master workmen, and depended upon
one Briet, who within a year quarrelled with Dolyn and withdrew
across the Channel with the workmen." Dolyn then tried to use the
services of native workmen, but in vain,' and he appears thereafter to
have done nothing more than to attempt to levy toll upon the output
of new adventurers.' The industry, however, did not appear to be
dependent upon royal protection, and an appHcation which the
patentees made in 1576 for a renewal of their privileges " met with
no response, for in the meanwhile others had set up works of the
same sort, which were important enough to make their depredations
upon the forests noticeable. In 1589 there were said to be fifteen
glass works in England, and seven years earlier their numbers were
1 Hulme, Antiquary, November, 1894.

' Page, Denizations, introd. pp. xlv, xlvi.
3 S. P. D. August 9, 1567. * Lansi 48, no. 78.
* Pat. 9 Eliz. pt. II (September 8, 1567). ' Lansd. 59, no. 76.
' Hist. MSB. Com. Rept. vii, p. 621 (Loseley MSB.).
' Lansd. 59, no. 72. • Lansd. 22, rio. 7.
large enough to cause the lord treasurer to make an effort to collect
"rents" of them to replace the customs lost.* In 1585 an effort
was made enactment of a statute regulating the em-

to secure the
ployment of aHens and checking the destruction of timber by glass
works.^ We are told that during Elizabeth's reign eleven glass-
houses were "put down" at Chiddingfold on the Sussex side or
Sussex-Surrey border. The authority ' for this is not the most
reliable, but at all events many glass makers were moving westward
in the last decade of the reign, obviously in search of new fuel
supplies.* Among the early workmen, unprotected and unaided
by royal favor, were Delakay and Orlandini of Venice,^ who did
not continue long in the industry; George Longe," who petitioned
for a monopoly in 1589; some French workmen in Sussex,' em-
ployed after the massacre of St. Bartholomew by the father of
Evelyn, the diarist; and an unnamed Itahan who worked at Guild-
ford.* Glass was also made in several places in Kent after 1572.'
The most important names, however, are those of the families of
Henzey and Tyzack, who were related to the great 'gentilshommes
verriers of Lorraine; " and the Bungars, who had similar connections
'
with the glass makers of Normandy.** They were probably Hugue- •
nots who, for religious reasons, severed their continental relations

about 1570. They brought with them the skill of their respective
famiHes, and became and continued until the nineteenth century
the most accomplished English workers in glass. They were involved
with the patentees of 1567; but the patent seems to have been a hin-
' Lansd. 59, nos. 72 and 75.

2 Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. iii, p. 5 ; Lansd. 59, no. 75.
' Aubrey, Nat. Hist, and Ant. of Surrey., iv, p. 36.
* Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893, p. 151 (Early English Glass-makers).
' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. xiii, pt. 4, p. 62.
' Lansd. 59, no. 72.
' Hartshorne, Old English Glasses, p. 169, quoting Evelyn, without indicating the
reference of volume and page.
' Kempe, Loseley MSS., app. p. 493.
° Antiquary, April, 1905, p. 127.
i" Beaupr^ Les gentilshommes verriers dans Pancienne Lorraine,
: 2" ed. Nancy,
1846.
" Le Vaillant de la Fieffe, Les verreries de le Normandie, les gentilshommes et
artistes verriers Normands, Rouen, 1873; Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893,
pp. 146 ff.
THE GLASS PATENTS 69
drance rather than a help to them, and their work prospered without
exclusive privilege as soon as the quarrels of the patentees set them
free, with other glass makers, to pursue their own ends. They sought
privileges but did not receive them, and though the industry remained
for a time open to all, these families soon became the chief pro-
ducers in England, and their works were scattered over many parts
of the country.' In the next reign the Bungars held aloof altogether
from the patentees, and were their most active rivals. The Henzeys
and Tyzacks also competed to a certain extent, but in general pur-
sued a more concihatory policy and accepted positions under the
patentees, though not very cheerfully. Whatever success the pa-
tentees enjoyed in the early Stuart period was due to them.
Meanwhile an effort was being made to develop the manufacture
of drinking glasses, and a patent was granted to an Italian, Giacopo
Versehni, for the sole manufacture for twenty-one years, and with
a prohibition of importation from abroad. It was declared that all
might buy freely of him in gross or at retail.^ The glass-sellers nat-
urally opposed the patent,' but without avail. Such complete powers
would seem to have been all that should have been necessary for a
successful undertaking. But perhaps only the most complete com-
mand of the market would have been a sufficient inducement to
establish in England such an advanced form of the industry. The
enterprise at all events had many diflSculties. Within a year of the
patent the Crutched Friars glass house, where the undertaking
was located, was burned to the ground.* It was rebuilt however,
before 1589,' and probably before 1581, as in the latter year the
Privy Council was involved in an unfortunate attempt to deal
arbitrarily with Orlandini, who with a new partner ° was infring-
ing Versehni's patent.' Infringement seems to have been a serious
difficulty in this enterprise, probably because the makers of other
kinds of glass were tempted to carry on this branch of the industry

as an incident to their main work. During Versehni's connection
with the undertaking httle is heard of it except the infringements.
' Lansd. 59, no. 76; 59, no. 72; 22, nos. 6, 7, 8; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii,
p. 621 (Molyneux MSS. August 1569); Hartshome, p. 170; Hallen, op. cit. ; and
Hulme, Antiquary, December, 1894, p. 262.
' Lansd. 48, no. 78.
2 Pat. 17 Eliz. pt. 13 (December 15, 1574).
* Stow, Annals, p. 680, Howes's ed. 1631. ' Lansd.
59, no. 77.
8 See above, page 68. ' C. R. February 19; May, 28, 1581.
The grant for twenty-one years had expired before any great work
had been accomplished.' In the mean time a grant in reversion
had been issued to Sir Jerome Bowes, covering the identical priv-
ileges which Versehni had enjoyed, and with more stringent regu-
lations against infringement.^ The only economic justification
for this second patent would have been that the first had not been
successful. But this was too weak an argument, and the real reason
was frankly stated. It was given in consideration of Sir Jerome
Bowes' s personal services to the crown, and of a rent of a hundred
marks per annum. The grant was renewed at its expiration,^ and in
the next year the reversion was granted to Hart and Forcett ' for
twenty-one years, to begin three years after Bowes's death. Edward
Salter received a patent for certain glasses not included in any of
these patents.^ The renewal of Bowes's patent was made at a time
when was no more prosperous
the industry than when he received
it At the time of the renewal, large arrears
in the first instance.^
of rent were due to the crown.' It was not long after this that a
new project was set on foot, which not only caused the revocation
of this patent, but also practically absorbed all branches of the
glass industry in England.
The glass industry, like the iron industry, encountered difficulty
in procuring cheap fuel. Glass making had, however, an advantage
in one respect, for its plants were not expensive and could readily
be abandoned and new ones built whenever the wood of the neigh-
borhood was exhausted.^ But this destruction of the forests aroused
great popular opposition.' Hence the French glass making families
had been impelled westward, first to the Forest of Dean, and then
to Staffordshire and Worcestershire," where there was more abun-
1 See S. p. D. April i6, 1624.
' Pat. 34 Eliz. pt. 15 (Febraary i, 1592).
' Pat. 4 Jac. I, pt. 15 (October 5, 1606).
* Pat. s Jac. I, pt. 24 (October 8, 1607).
5 Pat. 6 Jac. I, pt. I (February 15, 1609). « S. P. D. April 16, 1624.
' S. P.D. September 8, 1605. ' Lansd. 59, no. 72.
' See for example, Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. xiii, pt. iv, pp. 75, 76.
"• Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, 1893, Grazebrook doubts whether there
p. 151 ;
were any glassworks near Stourbridge before the proclamation of 161 5. The noble
Families of Henzey, Tyzack, etc. 1877, p. 10. But he himself cites the name of
a Tyzack from the parish register of Kingswinford, not far from Stourbridge, of the
date April, 1613 (p. 12). See also note 2 on next page, and page 72, below.
1
THE GLASS PATENTS 7
dant timber. But the supply of wood even in Worcestershire was

becoming exhausted ' and the presence there of surface deposits
of coal stimulated experiments with this fuel.^ The glass makers
left behind in Surrey and Sussex adopted the use of coal not
long afterward.' The first patent,^ however, was secured by a
court attendant, Sir WiUiam Shngsby, SHngsby carver-to-the-queen.
was neither an inventor nor a glass maker. He appropriated a
design introduced from Hungary and Germany by "a poor man"
whom he defrauded of his right.' Shngsby admitted that the French-
men had been the first in the field, but based his claim upon their
incomplete success." His own success, however, was no greater,
and his rights were set aside, despite his protest,' in favor of a new
project.' A patent ° was issued to Zouch, Thelwall, Percival, and
MefHyn, giving an exclusive privilege for the use of sea-coal in the
manufacture of glass. Though Slingsby's patent was set aside, the
rights of the patentees of 1606-09 were for the time being re-
served, and they were protected from infringement as before."
But the several patentees at once came into conflict with each
other, and the Privy Council was called upon to settle the dis-
putes." The outcome of all the proceedings was that a new and
exclusive patent was granted to Sir Edward Zouch and his part-
ners " setting aside completely the rights of Bowes and Salter
under their respective patents; but as a recompense for their
losses the ;£iooo rent reserved was assigned in pensions " to the old
patentees. The quality of Zouch's glass may be surmised from a
'
Dud Dudley, who entered upon the management of iron works at Stourbridge,
in 1619, said that the industry was decaying there for want of wood, " though for-
merly a mighty woodland country." Metallum Martis, p. 62, in ed. of 1858.
2 A petition to Parliament in 1624 calls upon Lord Dudley to witness the fact
that glass was first made with coal on his estate, Stourbridge, Worcester. (S. P. D.
April 16, 1624.) Dud Dudley confirmed this statement. Metallum Martis, p. 70.
3 See Sturtevant, Metallica, Appendix S, below.
* Pat. 8 Jac. I, pt. 12 (July 28, 1610). » S. P.D. July 27, 28, 1610.
« Harl. 7009, no. 4,fol. 9.
' S. P.D. February 26, 161 1.
» Lansd. 266, fol. no. » Pat. 9 Jac. I, pt. 29 (March 25, 161 1).
'» C. R. May 12, 30, July 18, 1613.
" C. R. July 29, August 6, 31, October 31, November 14, 1613. S. P. D. Novem-
ber 17, 1613. See also Gardiner, iv, p. 9.
1' Pat. ir Jac. I, pt. 16 (March 4, 1614).
1' C. R. July II, December 12, 1614; Sign Manual (v, no. 85), March 17, 1616.
which is ambiguous only in its formal wording. The
certificate
glass pronounced good and clear, but uneven and full of spots.*
is
Neither the farmers under Bowes's patent nor the independent

glass makers yielded gracefully to Zouch's monopoly. Several
makers of drinking and crystal glasses were imprisoned for their
obstinacy,^ and the French broad-glass makers persisted in using
coal.The Privy Council issued warrants to messengers of the
Chamber for the apprehension of Paul Tyzack ' who had several
plants in Staffordshire and Worcestershire, and for the arrest of
four of the Henzeys and two of the Tyzacks in Sussex.* For the
relief of the latter it was ordered that the patentees should buy up
their materials and equipment at reasonable prices, provided the
Sussex glass makers would give up their skilled workmen for the
benefit of the patentees.' The new patentees were anxious still
further to strengthen their position, and to this end they admitted

into partnership two powerful courtiers, the Earl of Montgomery
and Sir Robert Mansell. A new patent recognized the arrangement."
Henceforth the patent was under the guidance of Mansell, whose
name was most intimately associated with it, and who in fact
eventually acquired the entire interest.' Before Mansell joined the
undertaking, it had already acquired control, as far as the govern-
ment was able to enforce its orders, over the most promising part
of the industry, for the most efficient and economical plants were
already worked with coal, since glass smelting did not present
the same obstacles as iron smelting. There yet remained two steps
to be taken before the patentees could enjoy complete control over
the industry. The manufacture of glass with wood for fuel was a
traditional industry owing nothing to any patent, or at least no-
thing to any patent then unexpired. This part of the industry was
its existence side by side with the monopoly
destined to decline, but
would be an embarrassment. For a long time to come, it might
remain an active competitor with the new method, and might even
have the advantage in case the monopoly were not well managed.
' Kempe, Loseley MS S. p. 493.

' C. R. September 6, 30, 1614; January 13, 161 5.
= C. R. November 18, 1614.
* C. R. November 30, 1614. ' C. R. December 2i, 1614.
' Pat. 12 Jac. I, pt. 3 (January 19, 1615). ' See S. P.D. December 10, 1618.
And beside the disadvantage of having to compete both in qual-
ity and in price, there would be the constant danger that the old
glass makers would secretly use the new method, and the equally
great inconvenience that the monopoly might be too closely
watched to allow it quietly to use the old method. Yet to grant
an exclusive monopoly over the whole industry would be too clear
a violation of law, for it would contravene the decision in the Case
of Monopohes in the most open and direct way. There was also
danger from foreign competition. But the government was ready
with an expedient. A proclamation was issued which prohibited
the use of wood in the melting of glass, on the ground that it was
necessary to protect the forests. Importation was forbidden at the
same time.'
As only the patentees were entitled to use coal, this proclama-
tion of 1615 marks the final step in the realization of a complete
monopoly in the glass industry. The patentees were granted
all glass forfeited by virtue of the proclamation.* Henceforth the
glass monopoly engaged nearly half the attention which the Privy
Council devoted to the patents. Steps were immediately taken to
prevent the monopoly from losing any of the advantage which it
had now acquired. Orders were issued for the apprehension of

certain glass workers who were suspected of a design to retire from
the country.* Among the number was a certain Joshua Henzey,
described as a "servant" of Sir Robert Mansell.^ Warrants were
issued ' for the suppression of glass houses in the interest of Mansell.
A letter was sent to the chancellor and barons of the Exchequer,
directing them to call offenders before them and punish them
summarily." Open warrants of assistance were intrusted to Man-
sell.' Those infringing the patent or the proclamation were sum-
moned before the Council, their goods seized, and bonds required
of them.' Complaints against Mansell began at once to come in,
' R. O. Proc. Coll. May 23, 1615. S. P. D. clxxxvii, no. 42.

2 Grant Bk. p. 165.
' C. R. January-December, 1615, ii, 8, 115, 126. See also C. R. April 2, 1630.
< C. R. March 17, 1616. ' C. R. April 7, 1616.
« C. R. ii, 57, 58 (1618).
' C. R. December 30, 1617.
» C. R. 1618-25, iii, 354 ; iv, 57, 58, 260, 305, 334, 335, 354, 356, 448, 450, 455,
461,674; V, 86, 87, 96, 97, 100, 104, 144, ig6, 226, 229, 480, 602, 628, 636, 704; vi,
15, 16, 40, 41, 67, 68, 99, 402, 403.

;

and they accumulated The glass, it was said, was now
rapidly.
poor, undersized, scarce, and expensive. And it was certified that
wood was being consumed in Mansell's works.'
This patent was called in question in the Parliaments of 1614,
162 1, and 1624.^ In a statement prepared in defence of his patent
during the debate upon the monopoly bill, Mansell recounted his
struggles and previous failures to establish the industry. After
unsuccessful ventures in London,' the Isle of Purbeck, Milford
Haven, and on the Trent, he claimed that he had at last succeeded
at Newcastle,' where he was "saving fuel," "increasing shipping,"
keeping 4000 (!) men employed and making cheap glass.^ In a
counter petition all these representations were severally denied by
the independent glass makers, who treated the whole question
soberly and soundly. They showed that since Verselini's patent in
1574 there had been a continuous succession of monopohes in glass,

and that during this period of fifty years the patentees had as far
as possible excluded all others from the trade, but had done little or
nothing to advance the art themselves, and that very few if any
natives had been instructed in it, although this was supposed to be
the chief motive of the grant. The glass industry, instead of being
advanced, had been retarded, because many glass makers who could
not get satisfactory employment under the patentees had passed
beyond seas to seek a livehhood, carrying English skill to foreign
countries." Mansell, they pointed out, had raised prices, though
' C. R. April 23, 1617 ; S. P. D. March, 1620 (cxiii, 47-53) ; C. J. May 16, 1621
Proc. and Debates, 1620-21, April 30, 1621 (ii, 360-363). The patentees, on their
part, secured a single and somewhat suspicious testimonial. S. P. D. April 15, 1621.
^ C. J. April 20, May 6, 1614; May 16, 1621 ; April 19, May i, 1624.
5 Howell, who was employed by Mansell as his foreign agent for the works at
Winchester House, from 1618 to 1621, wrote that " Sir Robert Mansell hath . . .
melted vast sums of money in the glass business, a business more fit for a mer- —
chant than a courtier My father fears that this glass employment will be too
. . .
brittle a foundation for me to build a fortune upon and hath advised me to . . .
hearken after some other condition." Ho-Elianae, p. 103 in ed. of 1890.

* Hallen, Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893, notes from the parish register of All
Saints, Newcastle, February u, 1618: " Edward Henzey, servant to Sir Robert Man-
sell," which approximately Newcastle work.
fixes the date of the beginning of the
After this date, the names of Henzey, Tyzack, and Tittory are frequently found there.
5 S. P. D. April ? 1624 (clxii, 63).
" This is confirmed by continental evidence. See H. Schuermans, Verreries h la
Venetienne. Let. ii, p. 37 1 (quoted by Hartshome, p. 38).

the cost of production had not increased. They showed that the
shipping maintained by Mansell was insignificant. Their answer
with regard to the saving of fuel, which was Mansell' s strong argu-
ment, is interesting, for it followed a Hne of reasoning that was rare
in its day. After explaining that the glass furnaces had not been
accustomed to employ heavy timber, but only Ught Kmbs and
branches of trees, they contended that the danger of demolish-
ing forests could not really be a serious one, because it had been
found in experience that the profits in the glass industry were too
low to admit of a successful prosecution of any undertaking when
the expense of fuel was high; and they insisted that the price of
fuel would everywhere reach this prohibitive point long before the
forests were jeopardized. They represented that it was, in fact,
economic necessity which compelled them to take up the use of
coal as fuel, and that they had resorted successfully to this method
of preparation before any patent was granted for the use of coal,
and before the proclamation forbidding the use of wood. They
corrected a statement made by Mansell to the effect that Bungar
had made a competitive bid for a patent. What Bungar and others
had offered to do was to pay the king a rent of ;£iooo, for permis-
sion to themselves and to all others to manufacture without re-
straint, and to sell at two shilhngs per pound less than Mansell's
prices.^
The agitation in the previous Parhament, 162 1, had had an un-
expected effect. Mansell was at the time abroad in the naval service,
and this was made an excuse for insisting upon a suspension of the
proceedings against his patent.^ Mansell forwarded a petition
relative to his patent, which was referred to a committee, which
reported that as Mansell was "a faithful servant of the king"' his
patent should be upheld notwithstanding that it was complained
' D. April 16, 1624.

S. P.
2 D. and C. R. June 18, 1621.
S. p.
8 " Mansell, who was an indifferent seaman and an incapable and dishonest
administrator, and whose only claim to the place was his favor with Nottingham, re-
mained in office and the greater portion of this paper is practically a record
till 1618,
of his unfitness for his important charge." —
Oppenheim, Royal Navy under James /,
English Historical Review, July 1892, p. 416. The office referred to was that of
treasurer of the royal navy. In 1618 Mansell sold this office and succeeded to that
of vice-admiral. See Diet. Nat. Biog.
^6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
of as a grievance in Parliament. At the suggestion of the referees
the Privy Council recommended a new patent for Mansell, giving
him a monopoly of manufacture for a term of fifteen years, but
allowing importation upon payment of a duty, out of which the
king might recompense Mansell " according to his wisdom." * A
patent was granted on these terms, ^ and the monopoly by this
means was extended to 1638. But as a matter of fact it was again
prolonged before it had expired, by force of an indenture in 1634,
which extended it for another term of twenty-one years. ^ Although
the unpopularity of this monopoly was evident from the course of
the debates of 1624, it was exempted, probably to save the bill, from
the act as finally passed.* The concession was very likely due to
Coke's influence. As lord chief -justice he had been a referee in the
controversy over Zouch's patent ^ in 16 13-14, and more than any
other person he had been responsible for the revocation in Zouch's
interest of the previous patents and for the compensation allowed
therefor." Now, however, he appeared as a strong opponent of this
monopoly, and he showed his dislike for the patent in 162 1 and
1624. He objected particularly to the length of the term of privilege,
and with good reason. Nevertheless, as chairman of the Committee
of Grievances he reported in favor of allowing the patent of 1623
to continue for the rest of its term, "but not to be renewed."'
This recommendation was adopted. The exception, however, was

carefully worded so as to lend no new support to the patent. The
jurisdiction of the common law courts was not precluded, and was
in fact invited by the express wording of the statute: "The said
letters patent shall be and remain of the like force and effect,
. . .
and as free from the declarations, provisions, penalties, and for-

feitures before mentioned as if this act had never been had nor
made and not otherwise." Bungar, persistent as ever, now pro-
ceeded to test the validity of the glass patent under the act. He
began to infringe upon Mansell's patent, and prepared to insti-
tute a suit at law for avoiding the monopoly. Thereupon the ever-
watchful Privy Council intervened and declared that the grant to
' C. R. October 12, 1622 ; February 5, 1623.
' Pat. 21 Jac. I (May 22, 1624);Appendix Y. ' See Appendix Z.
* 21 Jac. I, c. 3, sec. 13. See Appendix A. ' C. R. November 14, 1613.
« S. P. D. November 17, 1613.
' C. J. May 16, 1621 J
April ig, May 1, 1624.
THE GLASS PATENTS T7
Mansell was "agreeable to the late statute of monopolies." Bungar
was toldthat he might institute his suit, but in the mean while he
was not to encroach upon Mansell's rights. A few months later
the Council withdrew the right of trial at law, evidently fearing
the outcome. "The Lords declare that the patent shall stand. . . .
They think it of dangerous consequence and far trenching upon

the prerogative that patents granted on just grounds and of long
continuance should be referred to the strict trial of common law,
wherefore they order that all proceedings at law be stayed." ^ The
patent was restored to very much the same position as before 1623,
by an order in Council ' in 1630, which prohibited the importation
of crystal glass except from Venice, upon the representation of
Mansell that his undertaking was endangered by certain industries
which had only just begun operations upon the continent.
In 1635 Mansell wrote that he had sunk ;^3o,ooo in the glass
industry, and that before he was able to realize any return upon
his investments his workmen were enticed into Scotland, and he
was obhged to buy up the Scottish industry at £250 per annum in
order to recover his workmen. But upon their return they made
such poor glass that he had to introduce a whole company from
Mantua. Then his clerk ran away and encouraged a "ruinous"
importation of drinking-glasses from France, till the Privy Council
intervened. Since then he had made looking-glasses and spectacle-
glasses at great cost, but had not raised prices, while he had made
the price of window-glass more certain and moderate; and now
his men were again enticed away into Scotland.^ A few years later
the famiUar complaints were presented to the Privy Council, re-
presenting the dearness, badness, and scarcity of glass. This phe-
nomenon was not unusual, and would not be worth noting again
but for the action of the Privy Council, which well illustrates the
care which it took to admonish patentees of their obligations, while
at the same time it was reluctant to acknowledge to others that any
wrong had been done. In this case the Lords recorded that they
had "found by their own experience that glass was not so' fair, so
clear, nor so strong as the same was wont to be," and they informed
Mansell accordingly. At the same time they warned the petitioners
>
C. R. June 19, 1626. ' S. P. D. December 6, 1626.
' C. R. June 25, 1630. * S. P. D. January 28, 1635.
^

that their complaints were "merely clamorous and causeless," and
that if they hereafter troubled the board they would be imprisoned.*
After the Scottish invasion of Newcastle, Mansell wrote his last
appeal to the government. He detailed the condition of the New-
castle works "for window- glass." He said that he had three fur-
naces fully manned and at work when the Scots invaded Newcastle
and dismantled his plant and wares to the value of ;î9,ooo. He
had still to pay "dead wages" in order to keep his workmen. The
glass work in London depended upon Newcastle for coal. If this
closed down the workmen would return abroad. He was ;£ioso in
arrears of rent for the year, and "forbears to estimate" the arrears
of wages. He implored Secretary Windebank to obtain xeHef for
him, as under present conditions he was able neither to discharge
his debts nor to supply the Idngdom with glass.
Before he had had time to restore his works, his monopoly suf-
fered its final blow. In 1641 and 1642 Mansell' s patent again came
before Parliament. Mansell appealed to the House of Lords against
those who and he was there regularly and con-
infringed his patent
sistently supported.^ The opponents of the patent, on the other
hand, appealed to the House of Commons with complete success.
An order was passed for the restoration of certain glass which the
patentee had seized with the sanction of the Lords, and Mansell
was ordered to attend at the House.* Mansell then petitioned
the House of Commons, where it was ordered that the patent
should be submitted to the investigation of the Committee of
Grievances.^ Finally, it was ordered that the patent should be
dehvered up to the clerk of the House, and this appears to have
abruptly terminated the monopoly." Mansell was not discouraged
by his reverses and he restored his works notwithstanding his loss
of the exclusive privilege of manufacture.' Others were prompt
' C. R. and S. P. D. December 15, 1637; January 12, 1638.

2 S. P. D. September 15, 1640.
' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.iv, House of Lords MSS. Cal. May 13, June 16, July 21,
30, 1641; V, March 24, May 16, 1642.

* C. J. April 12, 1642.
* C. J. April 15, 1642. • C. J. May 30, 1642.
' The following facts relating to the Newcastle industries are derived from quo-
tations from the Common Council Order Books, inserted in Brand's History of
Newcastle (1789), ii, pp. 42-47.
in taking advantage of the opportunity, and, notwithstanding the
Civil War, the glass industry made progress at Newcastle.^ By
1646 Mansell had at least one rival there, who seems to have en-
joyed the preference of the local authorities. The Corporation
continued throughout the century to let out the leases to two plants,
known respectively as "The New" and "The Old," or "The
Eastern" and "The Western" glasshouses. Mansell died in 1653,^
and came under identical manage-
shortly afterward the two plants
ment. The were not apparently held directly by the Henzeys
leases
and Tyzacks until 1679, but they were probably the real managers
and superintendents, if not the actual undertakers, throughout the
whole Commonwealth period. The industry spread to other places
than Newcastle,' and a writer of the Restoration said that the
was the work of the preceding
diversification of the glass industry
twenty years,* and he either knew of no changes before the Civil
War or else thought the progress before that time was inconsiderable
in comparison with the advance during and after the war. At the
end of the seventeenth century there were from twenty to thirty
plants, out of a total of about ninety, which were devoted to the
production of the finer grades of glass; ^ but the greater part of these
had sprung up after the Restoration. °
In the somewhat comphcated relations of the crown with the
glass-makers and of the glass-makers with each other, a few facts
require special emphasis. The first patent was strictly legitimate,
but the selection of the recipients was unfortunate, for they proved
to be helpless without skilled workmen. Such workmen were indeed
wilhng to serve under them, but were unwilhng to carry out the
condition of the patent that native-born Englishmen should be
apprenticed in their art. The patent was an aid in the industry for
less than a year, and after that, as far as it had any influence, it
' See also, Gray's Chorographia, Richardson's reprint, p. 29.

2 The Dictionary of National Biography gives 1656 as the date of his death, but
Brand's quotation from the C. C. Order Books shows that it was 1653.
' Dudley, Metallum Martis, shows that glass was being made at Bristol in
1665 (p. 65 in 1858 ed.).

* C. Merret, editor and translator of A. Neri's Art of Glass, 1662, Preface.
5 John Houghton (editor), Collection for Improvement of Husbandry and Trade,

May 15, 1696.
° Houghton, op. cit. January 29, 1684.
8o ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
was a handicap. The single contribution made by the patent was
in opening negotiation with certain members of the glass-making
families of Normandy and But the English branches
Lorraine.
of these families never owed anything monopoly. They
to official
did not begin their operations until the patent was practically dead.
They estabhshed their position by competition in the markets,
and by that monopoly only which rigid secrecy gave them. It is
apparent that their methods were never learned by Englishmen
before the Civil War. The pubhcity which even then was regarded
as one of the most essential requisites of the patent system was
thus entirely wanting. That the negotiations were opened by
patentees was an incident of little significance, for the conditions
at home and abroad being as they were, it was not important how
the invitation was extended. On the terms of secrecy, many stood
ready to undertake the work in England. On the terms of the
patent, none were ready. The patent to Versehni in 1574 was the
first of a connected series of monopohes which continued unin-
terruptedly till 1642. During this period of about seventy years,

a privilege originally granted only for Venice glasses was gradually
extended in its scope until it embraced the entire glass industry
of the British Isles. The grant of 1574, hke that of 1567, was in
itself quite unobjectionable, but it failed of its object, while the
subsequent renewals and extensions under Verselini's successors,
Bowes, Zouch, and Mansell, could be justified upon no rational
grounds of law or pubhc expediency. From 1592 onward every
glass patent was parasitic, being in no instance granted in reward
of invention. Royal favorites enjoyed the fruits of others' achieve-
ments. Every advance that was made, whether in the fashion of
glass or in the method of making it, came from men who knew the
monopoly system only as a device to compel them to share with
others the fruits of their efforts. In 1640, as in 1570, the leaders
of the industry were the Bungars, who had consistently opposed
the patentees, and the Henzeys, Tyzacks, and Tittorys, who had
submitted to Mansell only under pressure and under the fear of
being otherwise altogether excluded from the industry. The fact
that the latter were serving under Mansell constituted his only
legitimate claim to monopoly. If they had been dependent upon
him for their capital, a monopoly for them, in hisname, might
1
THE GLASS PATENTS 8
have been an encouragement, though it would have been no help

to them, their methods being secret, unless others had been unjustly
excluded from the market. But, as a matter of fact, they were not
in need of capital. They had migrated for religious, not for pecu-
niary reasons; and until they were dispossessed in 1614, they had
depended upon no one for their capital. Mansell apparently did
contribute considerable capital after that date. But it should be
remembered that a large proportion of this was water, for at least
three patents were bought up which would have possessed no value
if markets had been open to all. And Mansell had bought out his own
partners upon the basis of the speculative value of the mcfnopoly.
Finally, much of his wasted expenditure was due to his business
methods and to his lack of acquaintance with the industry which
he controlled.
CHAPTER VII
THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS
Several attempts were made to establish alum monopolies in the

reign of Ehzabeth, but each of the attempts was short-Uved. An
alchemical project for the use of alum and copperas in the trans-
mutation of iron into copper included the queen and Lord Burghley
among its active promoters.^ The most important patent ^ was given
to de Vos, and this was assigned to the Earl of Mountjoy, who
secured a renewal and a confirmatory act of Parhament.' His
field of operations was the west shore of the Isle of Wight, called
Alum Bay. He was unfortunate from the outset, and apparently
had no business capacity. Nevertheless he asserted hopefully * that
though his subordinates had defrauded him, he would soon make
a handsome profit, sufficient to pay his debts, from the sale of alum
and copperas at four fifths of its present price. This, he added,
would be "to the annoyance of the pope," who was the chief pro-
vider of alum in Europe. But he was soon in a hopeless financial
position, and never did much with his patent. In 1593 the Earl
of Huntington sought to revive Mountjoy's privilege,^ but ap-
parently met with no encouragement.
The chief interest in connection with the alum enterprise centres
about the attempt to build it up as a great government monopoly.
The efforts in this direction began early in the reign of James I.
They can furnish interesting illustrations to any one who beheves

in the unfitness of government to administer industrial under-
takings. But the whole alum monopoly is such a con-
story of the
tinuously dismal one that would not be fair to Judge from it
it
what a reasonably business-hke government could have accom-

' Patent February 14, 1575. See Strype's Life of Smith, ed. 1820, p. 100.
2 Patent June, 1565.
« 8 Eliz. c. 21.
< " Lord Mountjoy's Treatise," 1566 ? S. P. D. Add. xiii, 49 (l).
' S. P. D. March, 1593, ccxliv, 109.

THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS 83
plished. The alum monopoly was foredoomed to failure from the
outset by fatal weaknesses of administration. The king was bent
on exploitation, the farmers upon plunder, and the ministers were
inefScient, while the honesty of many is doubtful. The enterprise
was supported by the usual and
protestations of lofty benevolence
solicitude for the welfare of the subjectsand of the commonwealth
in general. But in this case fair words cloaked more hypocrisy
than usual. To compensate for the enormous losses involved in
actual outlay, and for direct loss to producers and consumers
whose freedom of selling and buying was restrained,' it is difficult
to see how sufficient good can have resulted to any one save a few
dishonest farmers and contractors. As an encouragement to do-
mestic production, the project was a failure, and other domestic
interests suffered by it. The clothworkers were forced to take an
inferior article at an enhanced price. Their only rehef was illicit
importation, which seems to have been considerable ^ in amount.
As a revenue measure the project brought a severe though not
unmerited punishment.
The new patent was the result of the discovery of alum deposits,
apparently in abundance, in Yorkshire, brought to pubhc atten-
tion ' by Sir Thomas Lord Sheffield's interest at court
Challoner.
procured the grant in 1607, by representing ^ " how necessary
^
alum was for cloth and leather, how much the pope would suffer,
that ;£40,ooo would be saved in money and commodities an-
nually, that many hundreds would be set on work, clothed, fed,
and receive rehgious and other instruction, and that ships and
mariners would be maintained to carry coal, urine, alum, etc."
The original patentees were Sheffield, Challoner, Sir David Fowles,
and Mr. (afterward Sir) John Bourchier. These projectors then
arranged to procure capital from several London merchants, who
were to erect the necessary buildings, and were to be reimbursed
"with consideration for forbearance" before the projectors should
receive any profit. Though the building work progressed and the
crown extended the period of grace, the business had " many rubs and
stops at the beginning." The patentees and their workmen were
1 Malynes, Lex Mercatoria, ed. 1686, pp. i88-i8g.
^ Atherton had begun working in 1604.
"^
See below, pages 85, loi.
* Pat. 4 Jac. I, pt. 20 (January 3, 1607).
^ Lansd. 152, fol. 49.
inexperienced, and were, moreover, the victims of pretended ex-
perts; and ^jPôoo were lost without
in a short time ;£2o,ooo or
tangible result.^Gerard Malynes wrote ^ to the ministers, offering
"to make alum cheaper and six times better in other parts of the
kingdom." But £10,000 more was expended in importing workmen
from the German and papal alum works. Other domestic supply
being suppressed, and importation also prohibited,' the new, ex-
travagantly managed enterprise enjoyed a close monopoly, and
prices naturally reached a high point. The prohibition of importa-
tion was not proclaimed, however, until a pretense had been made
of careful investigation, and information was received from the
city of London as to prices for the past seven years.' Moreover,
two commissioners were sent down to the works to investigate the
capacity of the plant. They reported favorably, and one of them,
Ingram, who continued his active connection with the industry till
the end of the reign, declared that the London dyers, to whom some
of the alum was given, also approved it, "only they complained of
the grossness of it, alleging thatit wanted some time to lie and dry."
Whereupon the lord treasurer "was well satisfied and thought it

^
a good business to be taken into the king's hands."
The condition of the enterprise at this time does not seem to offer
much explanation of the eagerness to make the industry a direct
concern of the crown. The original projectors and the merchants
made a show of reluctance to part with their interests, but as soon
as favorable terms were offered, they readily yielded to the bargain,
which reheved them of the management of a nearly hopeless con-
cern, and at the same time promised them recompense for all the
sums which they had expended. The merchants, who in modem
parlance would be called bond or debenture-holders, resigned
their interest for an annuity of £6044 for twenty-six years, while the
projectors, or shareholders, compounded for an annual rent of
;£6ooo, to begin after seven years." To this another £1000 was
added for preachers at the works. Sir John Bourchier and Mr.
William Turner, who had been a subcontractor under the private
> Lansd. 152, fol. 49.
2 Lansd. 152, fol. 71 (73), August 29, 1609.
' B. M. Proc. Coll. June 19, 1609.
' Rep. xxviii, fol. 320b. January 10, 1609; Rem. ii, 340, January 19, 1609.
' Lansd. 152, fol. 49. • Indenture, May 6, 1609. Patent Rolls.
management, proposed to farm the business at a fixed rent; and
upon a favorable report ' by Ingram, it was leased to them for ;£sooo
the first year, £2000 the second, and ;îooo in five following years,
then subsequently ;g90oo.^ The farmers were to pay the annuities
and erect new buildings, so that the output should equal 2000 tons
annually. An agreement was made that either party to the bargain
might cancel it at the end of the first year.^ Bourchier and Turner
were still enthusiastic and may really have thought that they could
carry out the bargain, especially as there was hope that the still
further improvement of the works which was contemplated might

have the desired result. But within a year, and after the farmers
had been allowed an abatement of their rent on account of certain
licensed imports, they sought lenient treatment, as the works were
not prospering. They complained of smuggling, of infringement
of patent, of the necessity of selKng at a loss during the session of
Parhament, "to avoid their complaint, which my lord treasurer
approved of," and of the need of new buildings.* They begged to
be relieved of the whole business, not doubting that there are others
who "have a far better conceit thereof than we have who have
adventured in it." They objected especially to the burden of ;£6ooo
annually to "the patentees that never laid out penny." But the
lord treasurer "was very sharp with themand (said) that . . .
he would take order that his Majesty should have his due of them,
if all the estates they had in the world would yield it." ^ The con-
fidence of those interested in the work was, however, greater than

their confidence in the crown, and before the end of the year 161 1,
the lord treasurer received a request that Lord Shefiield's annuity
" may be made payable out of the Alum rather than the Exchequer,"
as its sale value would then rise by £300 or ;£400.° But this con-
fidence did not survive the death, in 1612, of the lord treasurer,
who was boldly accused, with Turner and Ingram, of fraud in con-
nection with the alum business.'
During the year 161 2, the alum business was in dire confusion.
1 May 6, 1609. GuUdhall Tracts, Beta, no. 60.

2 Lansd. 152, fol. 49.
3 S. P. D. December, 1609, 1, 64; Docq. October, 1609; Patent April 20, 1610.
< Lansd. 152, fols. 59, 67 (69), 63 (65) ; Titus, B, v, fol. 342.
' Lansd. 152, fol. 49.
• S. P. D. November, i6ii, Ixvii, 37. ' S. P. D. 161 3, bcxv, 68.

On the 14th of March, Richard Bowlder, who had been instrumental
in raising a loan through his correspondents in Middleburgh, and
Thomas and Bourchier, wrote to one
Jones, a partner with Turner
of the Council asking that the works might be sustained and them-
selves reheved. Their "charges" were too heavy, and they were
£4000 in arrears of "rent" to the king, and needed new build-
ings. They asked special consideration for the next five years, so
that the "profits arising in that time by the works may be allowed
in satisfaction of the stock already disbursed, and all future profit
to remain to the king." * On the nth of May, Turner wrote in des-
peration to Sir JuKus Caesar, chancellor of the Exchequer. He had
written to the lord treasurer an account of the critical state of the
alum business, but could get no answer. He had been entreated
by Cope, Bourchier, and Ingram to give his assistance, and they had
given him great promises of the lord treasurer's favor, which pro-
mises had proved to be "all wind." He was informed that most of
the work-people had already left, which must result in crippling
the work. The year was so far spent that it was impossible to pro-
vide new houses or repair the old ones. He urged that it would be
rashness to undertake to restore the business without guarantee of
adequate support. He concluded: "Unless you take some present
course, it is utterly overthrown. no other way to
. . . There is
preserve the king's honor and profit but to give all the grace and
assistance to it you can, and not to lay any burden upon it before
it be made a profitable work able to yield 2000 tons of alum yearly,
and then no doubt but that it will yield a good rent. Every day is
^
so precious that the loss therein cannot be regained."
On May, "Bowlder and Company" (or the Alum
the 20th of
Company) and became insolvent," four days before the
"failed
death of the lord treasurer. Among other creditors was their Middle-
burgh agent, to whom they owed £19,140. On the 31st of May
the bankrupts procured from the king a general "protection" as
joint co-partners in the alum business, and subsequently the pro-
tection was several times renewed.^ On the nth of June they
"humbly desire that the privileges granted by patent may be
hereafter punctually maintained ... in consideration whereof
they do offer to pay unto his Majesty for the first seven years from
1 Lansd. 152, fol. 89. ' Lansd. 153, fol. 103. ' Guildhall, Beta, no. 60, fol. loi.
midsummer next ;îooo per annum, and for the residue of the
time remaining in the patent ;i£40oo per annum. Over and . . .
above this rent they will

covenant to discharge his Majesty from the
annuities in present payable to the first undertakers, -fjiooo; and in
future, annuities to the patentees, £7000 . . . which they humbly
desire may be accepted, being the utmost values which the work
may Neither can these payments be raised without great
afford.
hazard, by further disbursements than already is issued, amounting
to above ;^4o,ooo." ' A rival offer ^
was made a few days later, and
here the proposals which the farmers had just made were tabulated:
1st 4 years £44,000
S4,ooo
fixed charges would bring the cost to £15,144, leaving £956 for two
years to the farmers. In the next two years the gain would be
^£5956, on account of the increased efficiency of the plant.But
after four years, their interest chargeswould be heavier, so that
they must lose ;£io44 for three years and at the end of seven years
£4044 annually.* Turner's statement ^ was of the past trans-
actions of the farmers, which gave the following rather startling
summary: —
Money sent to Gisborough Received from Gisborough,
at London, 1936 tons alum,
1 746 sold at £23 £40,158
190 exported at £15 2,850
Sale of coal from coal works
in the country 1,000
To balance the account 36,732
80,740 80,740
On the 23d of July the farmers signed a Treasury minute ^

at
York House, binding themselves to carry on the work till a new
adjustment could be reached, and it was agreed that some merchants
should be sent to inspect the works. Mr. Robert Johnson and
three others were accordingly sent, and on the 28th of August they
reported * that there were six buildings, aU erected before May,
1609, except part of one. The normal cost of one building per year,
at maximum output, they found to be: —
The normal output at maximum efficiency was found to be 166
tons per annum each, or 1000 tons 24^ = @ £24,000
Extraordinary charges since May, 1609:
Finishing a house £2,000
Repairing 300
New pits and cisterns 100
Experiments 500
By reason of wet seasons 1,5°°
"and many other casualties" [ ] 4,400
They found defective and rapidly decaying furnaces; coal and

wood not laid in; in some houses 500 workmen and colliers unpaid
months and more, threatening to desert the work
for three or four
upon which eight hundred families depended. They stated that
";^6ooo would not set the works aright."
The outcome of Johnson's investigation was that he with Ingram
and Sir Walter Cope resolved to take the control of the works into
their own hands. To this end they made a proposal on the 24th of
September, which was accepted with little modification by the
Treasury Commissioners on the 26th of February, 1613.' The plan
adopted was not substantially different from that proposed on the
12th of July, 161 2, by Cope, but which at that time Ingram stated
both he and Sir JuKus Caesar opposed,^ as they saw the peril of
taking the work out of the hands of the farmers and restoring it to
the king. But within a few months Ingram joined in the petition,
and Ingram, Johnson, and Cope were successful. The new scheme,
as a matter of fact, provided ' that they should turn over the works,
free of incumbrance, to the king at the end of four years. They did
not do so, but continued to operate the works, taking the place of
the farmers, whom they promised to recompense for their outlay,
along with the merchants and promoters. The new adjustment did
not mend matters. The farmers {i. e., the Alum Company) com-
plained that the new contractors were not meeting the obHgations
which they had agreed to assume; * and the creditors, one hundred
and eighty persons, to whom the alum company owed upwards of
;£44,ooo, besieged the ministers for permission to sue for recovery
of the debts; and the annuitors petitioned for an order for the
1 Lansd. 152, fol. 91 ; Titus B, v, fols. 337b, 338, 342.

2 Lansd. 152, fol. 49. ' Lansd. 152, fol. 9S.
* S. P. D. June, 1613, Ixxiv, 19, 20, 21.

payment of their promised incomes. The king shielded the Alum
Company by "protections," as long as he could and then gave
orders to the Lords Commissioners for a new adjustment. The
floating debts were scaled down to ;^3o,ooo, and in consideration
for undertaking to meet these, and also upon the report of the
depleted condition of the works, the new contractors seem to have
been granted a modification of their contract.^ But in 1614 protec-
tion had to be granted again to Bourchier and Turner, "the alum
works being not yet settled." ^ Meanwhile the works had formally
passed into the king's hands, ^ and the new contractors became
managers for the crown. They went down to the alum works
provided with money from the king, with which, according to their
own statement, they paid heavy arrears of wages, made extensive
and re-stocked the works with provisions and materials.
repairs,
Then they let the works on a short lease to the most experienced
persons they could find, stipulating for a fixed price for the alum.
After that Ingram and Johnson claimed to have made considerable
advances out of their private purses. Their proceedings were ap-
proved by the Treasury Commissioners,^ but this solution proved
as disastrous as the other had been. Johnson submitted an itemized
statement,^ showing that the king had disbursed, while the works
were in ownhis hands, £72,760," including the debts of the Alum
Company, now freed from insolvency; and that the immediate
output of the works had resulted in loss rather than gain. The
money advanced by the king was absorbed by the lessees without
even keeping up the repairs on the works or paying the work-
men's wages, according to the claim which Ingram afterward made.
Suffolk, the new lord treasurer, determined in 161 5 to farm the
work once more, in order to stop the king's unprofitable disburse-
ments; and he was obhged to accept the bid of Ingram, Johnson, '
1 Lansd. 152, fol. 49. ^ Sign Manual, iv, no. 71.

3 Docq. April, 1613. ' Lansd. 152, fol.
49.
' Lansd. 152, fol. 53.
• Various estimates of the losses of the king in this business range from ;£'65,650
(Somers, Tracts, 1619, ii, pp. 372, 380) to ^120,000 (Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.
House of Lords Calendar, May 27, 1663, vii, 172). Malynes (Lex Mercatoria, p.
189 in ed. 1686) wrote in 1622 :
" His Majesty hath been pleased to enter into the
said works and laid out so many thousand pounds as is not fitting to be expressed."
' Lansd. 152, fol. 65 (67).
1'

Freeman, and Lowe, who received a grant for twenty-one years,
with a subsidy of ;£io,ooo in cash, agreeing to make 1800 tons yearly
at £10 per ton. Simultaneously, a grant was passed to other parties
conferring the office of receiving, transporting, and selling the alum
produced by the new farmers.^ The king's only income from these
two transactions was to be the difference between the ultimate
market price and the {^\o per ton at which his agents were to buy,
and the agents were to receive from the king a "pension" of ^^(id
per annum. The farmers, Ingram, Johnson, Lowe, and Freeman,
did not engage to reheve the king of the annual obhgations to
undertakers and patentees. But even under these conditions they
did not prosper. Out was exhausted
of the ;îo,ooo subsidy, 8000
upon repairs and accrued wages and the best subcontract that
could then be made took the remaining ;22ooo as a bonus to two
makers. Sir John Brooke and Thomas RusseU, who then agreed
to produce 1800 tons annually at £9 per ton. Ingram claimed
that the slight margin of profit left to him and his associates was
soon absorbed by other emergency expenses.^ Ingram's reputation
for honesty does not seem to have been very flattering. His con-
tinued connection with the alum business was ascribed at the time
to the anxiety to remove him from the court. Chamberlain, the
wrote ^ to Carleton that Ingram had been made cof-
court gossip,
ferer of the king's Household, but that the officers of the Green
Cloth and the Black Guard had declared that they "would rather
be hung than have such a scandalous fellow over them." Later,
he wrote again ' that, "Ingram delays leaving, his place at court; he
is to go to Yorkshire on the alum business; his conduct is much
canvassed." Finally he wrote ^ that Ingram had with much diffi-

culty been ejected from the court.
Complaints of subsequent dishonest dealings at the works then
began to come in ' to the ministers, until a commission was appointed
to inquire into the alleged frauds. The inquiry dragged on ' from
1616 to 1619, and brought to Hght a considerable amount of infor-
1
S. P. D. July, 1615, Ixxxi, 13, 14; Sign Manual, v, 29.
2 Lansd. 152, fols. 49 ff. ' S. P. D. March i, 1615.

< S. P. D. April 7, 161 5. * S. P. D. July 13, 1615.
' S. P. D. December I, 1615; March, 1616, Ixxxvi, 116.
' Sign Manual, vi, no. 10, March, 1616.
8 S. P. D. March, 1616, Ixxxvi, 117 ; May i, 1619.
mation damaging to many of the parties concerned in the business,
but found no satisfactory solution for the perplexing state of afEairs.
Ingram asserted that his last efforts would have been crowned with
success but for an accident which could not have been foreseen,
and he made a plea for further indulgence. But Lowe submitted
a petition ^ to the commissioners confirming the charges which had
already been made against the new farmers. Ingram and Johnson,
he said, had persuaded him, an inexperienced man, to enter into
a partnership with them and with Martin Freeman. Lowe's charges
were especially directed against Johnson, who had promised to
take a fourth part and manage the enterprise, but who then with-
drew upon the pretext that it was not proper for him, in his official
be openly connected with the work, " and that he could
position, to
help better outside the society." He took advantage of Lowe's
ignorance and drove a hard bargain with him. Johnson continued
to guide the industry and obtained various new sums from the
king. Lowe was induced to sink ;,£20,ooo and was now in despair,
since he was unable to produce the amount contracted for. He
implored a loan of ;£5ooo from the king, " and if he is successful and
brings income to his Majesty" prays that he "may be reimbursed
as many others have been in this business." As a result of the
inquiry, numerous readjustments ^ were made in the relations of
the various interested parties to each other, but nothing could be
done to remove the real difficulties. Meanwhile, in the course of a
protracted chancery suit, of the alum
the Middleburgh agent
company was still strugghng to obtain justice, which was delayed
by various legal tricks.^ At this time also the lord treasurer was
being tried in the Star Chamber for fraud and corruption in the
alum business and other affairs.^
Ingram still retained his intimate connection with the work, in
spite of all opposition. If he had been an honest man, it is probable
that he would have been eager to withdraw. But he held on to the
seemingly hopeless undertaking, making the only profits that were
being cleared by any one. His fall from favor was finally due to
' Lansd. 152, fol. 55.
' Sign Manual, x, no. 2, March, 1619; xi, no. 9, November 4, 1619; x, no. 70,
July 25, 1619; Grant Bk. pp. 273, 277.
' Guildhall, Beta, no. 60. See above, page 86.
* S. P. D. October 30, November 13, 1619.
a project which succeeded in interesting more powerful courtiers
than his own patrons. The plan originated with Sir John Bourchier,
who was freed from habiUty for arrears of debt due to the crown
since 1611 in the alum business, "it being found on examination
that he ought in equity to be freed therefrom." * This indulgence
made him ambitious for a new speculation. In the next year he was
ready with a proposition which the king committed to investigation,
"the works being supposed capable of yielding profit to his Maj-
esty." ^ His plan was to become the king's farmer for alum and
for soap.' The soap monopoly, destined to become very important
in the following reign, was just beginning to be considered at this
time; and its possibiUties were shrewdly foreseen by Bourchier,
who apparently thought it a wise policy to combine with this un-
happy undertaking one with prospects of good success. The king
had tried in vain to withdraw from his alum business, but it always
came back to his hands. If the king could not be rid of it, why
not redeem it, or conceal its miserable plight by consolidating it
with a young and healthy project? In December, Bourchier sub-
mitted a statement * of the benefit the king would receive by work-
ing the alum and soap business on his own account, and asked
that the alum works should be transferred to him from Ingram,
and that the soap scheme should be further considered. He offered ^
to assume responsibility for an annuity of ;^2ooo which had been
promised to Secretary Conway out of the alum profits. Bourchier
seems to have felt the importance of Conway's influence, for shortly
afterward he wrote to Conway that he had intended to offer ;îo,ooo
to the king for the farm of the two monopolies, but now proposed to
pay the king ;£6ooo per annum, and to increase Conway's interest.
He claimed that the king would gain ;£20,ooo by a tax of £2 per
ton on soap, and might keep a diamond (Sir Paul Pindar's) worth
£35,000.° Fully ;£8o,ooo would be necessary, but the king's help
' D. June 18, 1622.

S. P.
^ S. P. D. July 12, 1623.
* S. P. D. December, 1623, civ, 25.
' D. August 13, 1623.
S. P.
' S. P. D. December, 1623, civ, 40.
' When Buckingham went abroad with Prince Charles, he took Sir Paul Pindar's
great diamonds, promising to " talk with him about paying for them." (S. P. D.
February 27, 1623.) James coveted the largest diamond, valued at ;^35,ooo. Later,
Charles " purchased " it for ;î8,ooo to be paid out of the profits of the alum works.
S. P. D. July 20, 1625.
would not be needed. Sir Arthur Ingram was to be recompensed
alum works.*
for the loss of the
Bourchier soon after tried a less expensive way of disposing of
Ingram. Instead of buying him out, Bourchier and others brought
charges ^ against Ingram for misappropriation of funds. Ingram,
it was claimed, had wrongfully gained £53,000 in seven years, had
not disbursed funds entrusted to him for the works, had not per-
formed and had abused his work-people. A com-
his covenants,
mission ' was accordingly constituted. In the in-
of investigation
terval before the Exchequer Commission began its investigation,
Bourchier renewed his offers * of money to Conway, having already
suggested to him that he might make ;£30oo per year by securing
the monopoly of exporting soap.^ Conway wrote ° on behalf of
Bourchier to the chancellor of the Exchequer, before whom the
hearings were held. Shortly afterwards Bourchier wrote ' to Con-
way, claiming to have proved his charges against Ingram, "who
says he will sell all his land rather than give up the works." Bour-
chier, however, did not in the end obtain the grant which he sought.
He seems to have quarreled with his partners. Turner made a rival
bid, and Bourchier wrote to Conway offering ;£iooo more than any
bid Turner might make.* It was probably intended that Bourchier
should have the grant, for Conway procured a warrant for a grant
alum and soap works?
to himself of ;^2ooo out of the profits of the
"in compensation for his great trouble about them." ' But the
king died before Bourchier received the lease, and nothing more
is heard of the scheme to combine the alum and soap projects,
though Bourchier still maintained his connection with the soap

business.'" Ingram, however, did not escape the investigation. He
wrote '' to Conway, excusing himself for the non-performance of his
contract. He was ready to give up the ;£6ooo which he had already
'
S. p. D. January 29, 1624.
2
S. P. D. March to July, 1624, dxi, 70, 71 clxiv, 98; dxix, 54,
; 55.
^
S. P. D. March, 1624, clxi, 72.
*
S. P. D. July 17, 1^24. 5 s. P. D. May 18, 1624.
'
S. P. D. Conway's Letter Book, p. 140, Cal. 1623-25, p. 314.
'
S. P. D. August 24, 1624.
«
S. P. D. September 6, 1624.
"
S. P. D. December 14, 1624.
'"
See chapter on the Soap Corporations, below.
" S. P. D. September, 1624, clxii, 13-16.
lost, but claimed ;î3,ooo as partial compensation for surrendering
his lease of the works which he had "brought
good a condi- to so
tion." He
even offered "to repair the houses and to supply . . .
such stock as is required by the lease." But his promises were

unavaihng. He " was fetched up by a pursuivant from Yorkshire,
where he was all in his glory, to answer an account about the alum
mines, where he is found £<poo short." ' The evidence taken by
the Commission ^ was so damaging that Ingram had to retire from
the enterprise. But his influence with the king caused delay ^ of
punishment, which he appears finally to have escaped altogether,*
and he drove a very good bargain upon his withdrawal.' A year later
he was reported as owing ;£iS5o to the crown on account of the
alum business.'
During Ingram's management of the works, from the close of
the investigation of 1619 to the more effective one of 1624, the total
output of alum was only 1565 tons, or an average of 313 per year,
while no less than 2000 per year was regarded as necessary in order
to clear expenses.' The aggregate receipts during this period
amounted to less than £27,500, and out of this gross yield there
was disbursed the sum of ;^22,i5o. Contracts absorbed £16,716.
Ingram let one contract to himself for £8180. £2610 were paid
for interest and brokerage. Wages and "entertainment" took
£776, of which manual labor required only £83. A proclamation
secured in 1619 cost £80, and the preachers were paid £160. Of
the difference between the receipts and expenditure, £5350, only
£3900 ultimately reached the Exchequer, and that not until 1633.
The remainder consisted principally of bad debts, which were
assigned to the accountants in lieu of an agreement to pay them
£1000 for their services.' But the account rolls do not tell the
whole story. The king made large disbursements to stock the
^
S. P. D. October 23, 1624. Chamberlain to Carleton.
2 Dep. by Com., Exch. K. R., Hil. 22 Jac. I, no. 28.
3 S. P. D. November 28, 1624.
>
See article on Ingram in Diet. Nat. Biog.
5 S. P. D. February 22, 1625.
» B. M. Add. 34,318, fol. 40.
' See above, page 86.
Audit Office Declared Accounts 2487, 354. Delivered May, 1633. The account
«
extends from 1619 to 1628, but nothing was done at the works for some time after
Ingram's removal. See B. M. Add. 34,318, fol. 40.
works. Ingram received the money and sold the equipment to the
sub-contractors, pocketing the proceeds.' Finally, the king was
paying to the original projectors pensions which did not appear in
the alum accounts.
The alum monopoly had been especially excepted from the
Statute of Monopolies,^ and the work was reorganized after the
exclusion of Ingram. Pindar, who had sided with Turner in his
rivalry with Bourchier, became the acknowledged chief of the
enterprise, and he with Turner farmed the works on a new lease
at ;£ii,ooo per annum.' One of the earhest acts of King Charles
had been to issue a proclamation * renewing the prohibition of the
importation of alum. The preamble recited that "that great and
commendable work of making alum of the native mines of this
our kingdom, not many years since discovered mthin our county of
York, is, by the disbursement and expense of sundry great sums
of money made by our most dear and royal father, brought to
such perfection as there is now no doubt or question but sufficient
quantities of good, well roached, and merchantable alum may be
made, as well for supply of our own dominions of so necessary
and useful a commodity, as also for foreign vent and sale of great
quantities thereof -with other our neighbor kingdoms." ^ At the time
of this emphatic declaration of success, the works were practically
suspended. The first operations at the revival of the undertaking
ended in disaster. Loss resulted from plague in the north, and two
ships were captured by pirates. The first quarter's rent was there-
fore remitted." At this juncture Baron Sheffield, who had become
Earl of Mulgrave at the accession of Charles I, sought to assume
the management of the works. It was principally upon his property
that the alum mines were situated, and various annuities in the
business had been transferred to him by assigiunents,' so that his
interest amounted to about ;^8ooo a year.' To recover this income,
' Dep. by Com., Exch. K. R., Hil. 22 Jac. I, no. 28.
^21 Jac. I, c. 3, sec. 11. See Appendix A.
' Docq. April, 1627. < B. M. Proc. Coll. April 13, 1625.
' Cunningham, ii, p. 293, n. 3, cites this proclamation as apparent evidence of
the success of the undertaking. But the sincerity of the preamble is doubtful.
' S. P. D. February 23, 1627.
' See 8. P. D. December 24, 1623 ; August 13, 1624.
1 Hari. 3796, fols. 75 ff.
'

he asked permission to work the mines with a stock to be provided
by the coinage of ;£ioo,ooo of copper money.' He failed, however,
to receive the authority required. The
his estates were
plants on
of so little pounds that had
value, notwithstanding the thousands of
been expended upon them, that the farmers, Pindar and Turner,
tried the' experiment of abandoning them altogether, and they
set up new works near the Tower of London. But the inhabitants
protested ^ vehemently to the Council against the "insufferable and
contagious annoyance" of the "loathsome vapor." Pastures were
said to be tainted and the fish poisoned. The matter was referred *
to the College of Physicians, who reported unfavorably to the works,
and was resolved that the undertaking was " fit to be suppressed." *
it
The order was shortly afterward renewed,^ but compliance was still
delayed. ° Finally the farmers were persuaded to transfer the plant
to Newcastle, and the Council wrote ' to the mayor and aldermen of
that town and assistance. They were not
directing their consent
to fear for their salmon, for the farmers had assured the king that
nothing should be let into the river to hurt the fish. Bourchier
took advantage of the troubles of the farmers to offer better terms
for a lease from the king, but he was disappointed, perhaps because
of the king's obligations to Pindar, who, although he had not been
paid for the great diamond,' nevertheless continued to loan large
sums to his royal master. He was therefore in high favor, had
already been made a collector of customs and was now unmolested
in the alum farm. The king anticipated large profits from Pindar's
operations, and discharged a debt which with interest amounted
to £13,350 by assigning payment out of the alum farm of 1630 and
1631.'° Pindar apparently returned to Yorkshire directly after the
London experiment, without attempting to start a new industry at
Newcastle. When his lease was about to expire, in 1637, he wrote "
to the king that he had recently "much advanced" the alum
1 S. P. D. June, 1627, Ixviii, 43. ' C. R. July 20, 1627.
3 S. P. D. July 23, 1627. * C. R. July 25, 1627.
' C. R. September 12, 1627. ' C. R. December 12, 1627.
' C. R. January 28, 1628. « S. P. D. 1628, cxxvi, 58.
Carew, Hinc illae Lachrymae, pp, 20, 21.
•
>" S. P. Docq. July

4, 1628.
" S. P. D. C. I, cccvii, 57, The calendar assigns " 1635 ? " as the date of this
letter. It probably should be " 1637."

work, which had hitherto been only a burden; and his assertion
is confirmed by other evidence.'
have been observed that the entire history of the alum
It will
monopoly during the period of the first lease granted by Charles I

was one of experiments. It was only near the end of this period
that the alum business was redeemed from the consequences of the
mismanagement under James I. Pindar, however, had so far
succeeded as to lead the king to an effort to derive an increased
revenue from the work. As early as 1630, he planned that at the
expiration of Pindar's lease a new farm should be let for ;£ 12, 500
instead of £11,000.^ The king also took measures to appropriate the
larger share of the rents. The mutual relations of the crown and
the chief annuitant had long been compHcated. As early as 1624
a statement had been prepared in the Exchequer showing that the
money which from the alum works, together
Sheffield received
with arrears of various rents and taxes owing by him to the king,
exceeded the whole amount due to him from the alum by ;/^4925.'
There seems to have been an attempt to challenge the terms on
which he claimed to hold his property under grant from Queen
Ehzabeth.* The dispute was settled before Pindar's lease expired.
"In Hilary term, 9 Carol, prim., Edmund Earl of Mulgrave and
others levy a fine to the king and his heirs and successors of the
castle and manor of Mulgrave, and of all the lands and tenements
in and belonging thereunto, formerly granted to the ancestors of
the said earl by Queen Elizabeth." An indenture was then made
with Sir John Gibson for the reversion of the farm of the works
after the expiration of Pindar's lease. The ;£i2,5oo provided for
in 1630 was reserved, ;îo,86o for the king, and ;£i640 for the Earl
of Mulgrave. The property was then restored to the earl with the
alum rents reserved.^ Pindar tried to obtain a renewal of his lease,"
1 S. p. D. May 26, December 20, 1637.

"^
S. P. D. June 26, 1630; Patent, July 14, 1631.
' S. P. D. August 13, 1624.
* Hist. MSS. Com. Cal. Salis. Papers, iv, p, 105.
5 A Brief Narrative of the several remarkable Cases of Sir William Courten and
Sir Paul Pindar, 1679, p. 10. Prof. Firth, in the article in Diet. Nat. Biog. says of
Edmund Sheffield that the causes ofhis defection from the king in 1640 are obscure.
The above proceedings seem to throw some light upon the subject. This was the
dispute with Strafford to which Prof. Firth refers.
« S. P. D. C. I, cccvii, 57.
THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS , 99
but, failing in this, purchased the lease wliich Gibson and his
principal, the Earl of Strafford, had procured. From 1640 to 1648
Pindar continued to conduct the undertaking, paying the rents
both to the king and to the Earl of Mulgrave, "notwithstanding
the interruption of making alum during the war." ' During the
whole reign of Charles I, Pindar's pecuHar financial relations with
the king render it very difficult to form even an approximate esti-
mate of the success of the industry. His greatest source of income
arose from his office of farmer of the customs. But his loans to the
king were lavish to the point of recklessness,^ so that he may have
advanced the alum rents at his own cost. The evidence for the
prosperity of the undertaking rests chiefly upon his own testimony
and upon that of his executors.^ But at all events, he was reluctant
to resign his lease in 1648.
The Earl of Mulgrave's petition for restoration to the mines came
before the House of Commons in 1647.^ The committee which to
the alum business was referred reported in favor of the and earl,
also submitted the petition of the dyers of London, who complained

of the "grievous and intolerable burden" of the alum monopoly.
On the recommendation of the committee, the House ordered
that the patent as well as the lease should be canceled,^ and " that
the committee have a care that the alum business do not decay."
In this vote the Lords concurred.^ Pindar petitioned that he might
not be required to surrender his patent until he had been given
opportunity to justify his title.' On the 4th of May the House of
Lords ordered him to surrender his occupation to the earl,* to which
Pindar rephed by asking them to suspend the order. In June the
relatives of the Earl of Mulgrave, who claimed an interest in the
work, petitioned that Pindar should be allowed to continue his
connection as formerly; and Pindar renewed his own petition
while the earl put in a counter-petition. Finally, it appears that
1
Brief Narrative, pp. 10, 11 ; Egerton, 2541, fol. 266; Harl. 3796, fols. 75 ff.
See above, page 42.

2 " This Sir Paul never fails the king when he has most need." S. P. D. April 1,
1639.
^ The authors of Hinc illae Lachrymae, and Brief Narrative.
< C. J. May 13, 1647.
' C. J. March 16, 1648.
» L. J. March 31, 1648.

' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii, p. 18, Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. x, p. 163.
' Brief Narrative, p. 11.
lOO ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
some sort of an amicable understanding was reached between
Mulgrave and Pindar.* With the cancellation of the alum lease
the works ceased to enjoy a monopoly, and the means of measuring
their prosperity are therefore unsati?factory. It is known that new
ventures were undertaken in Yorkshire, and they seem to have been
more vigorously pushed than the industry still carried on upon the
Mulgrave estate.^ The latter works were the subject of an official
inquisition in 1662, which showed them to be in a very hopeless
and dismantled condition, and owing to the workmen large arrears
of wages. ^ In the next year a bill was brought into Parliament to
restore the royal monopoly, but it was dropped after the first read-
ing.* In 1679 the executors of Pindar were not able to show that
more than 15,000 tons had been produced on the estate since 1648,'
an average of only 500 tons yearly.
The Yorkshire grounds, therefore, had no marked superiority
over other alum deposits. The same comparisons can be made for an
earher period, for the original Yorkshire patentees had had to buy
out several valuable privileges which had been previously granted,
and which had been excepted from the Yorkshire monopoly." One
owner who was excluded by the revocation of his patent offered
" to make alum cheaper and six times better in other parts of the
kingdom." ' The alum industry was the most important business
venture of King James, and it failed, partly through the business
inefficiency of the king and his ministers, partly through the gross
and culpable mismanagement of those to whom the work was en-
trusted. There has scarcely been a time in modem English history
when it would have been more disastrous to the government to act
as entrepreneur than in the reign of James I. No king was sur-
rounded by a greater host of gentlemen fortune-seekers; no king
was favored with fewer statesmen of a high order of ability. None
of James's ministers had genius combined with patience with the ;
' L. J. May 9, 25, June 13, 20, 27, 1648; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. vii, 24, 27, 32.
The authors of the Brief Narrative, however, refer (p. 11) to the ejectment of
Pindar without alluding to any reconciliation.
' C. J. April 2, 1657 Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. xi, p.
; 528.
» Dep. by Com., Exch. K. R. 1662.
* May 27, 1663. Cal. House of Lords MSS. L. J. xi, p. 528.
" Brief Narrative, p. 11. • Vesp. C. xiv (2), fols. 8, 12.
' See above, page 84.
THE ROYAL ALUM WORKS lOI
exception of Sir Julius Caesar none had any capacity for mastering
details. In public works of any sort, therefore, the government was
at the mercy of those who possessed a large amount of address and
a moderate amount of ability. Sir Arthur Ingram, who, more than
any other, was responsible for the conditions that prevailed at the
works, was allowed to follow this enterprise for the king's glory,
because he was too much of a rascal to be tolerated even at court,
yet had to be provided for. He was permitted to retain his con-
nection long after his unscrupulous methods were weU understood.
The ease with which about ;£ioo,ooo was drawn from the king in
successive installments, only to melt away imperceptibly with but
little advantage to the works, would be incomprehensible if it were
not known how easily others secured large amounts from the same
source. The most that any one of the several commissions of
inquiry could discover as a result of all the outlay were a few
inadequate buildings, sadly decayed, and a body of desperate and
starving workmen. The meagre and irregular output could not
possibly have answered the needs of a cloth producing country,
and illicit importation must have been more general than current
complaints indicated. Prices were raised and the quality of the
product deteriorated. There can be no possible doubt as to the
commercial failure of the monopoly. Notwithstanding the exclu-
sive right of manufacture, and the prohibition of importation, the
industry did not return to the crown a pittance of the investment,
while no reasoning from the facts can demonstrate that, by the
monopoly and protection afiforded, the industry was "established."
CHAPTER VIII
THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT
The Clothworkers' Company of London was divided in its atti-
tude upon the subject of the finishing of cloth before exportation.'

Owing to its pecuUar relation to other clothing interests, it was
remarkable in the variety of economic and industrial interests within
its membership. The wealthier portion, primarily interested in
trade, dominated the court of the company, but the industrial
members were strong enough to assert their interests, and with
royal aid they triumphed for a time over the commercial elements.
They failed not because they were poHtically weak, but because their
project was economically unsound.
In the first Parliament of James I, a petition ^ was received from
the artisan clothworkers of London, protesting against the numer-
ous private patents for export of undressed cloth and praying that
the statutes of 33 Henry VIII, c. 19, and 8 Elizabeth, c. 6, should
be enforced. was asked that the artisan clothworkers might be
It
officially company and duly incor-
recognized as an independent
porated. Later the Earl of Salisbury received a petition from " the
poor of the company of the clothworkers" (meaning the artisans),
in which they referred to their late bill and the evidence given in
support of it. This claimed that none but the Merchant Adventurers
and private licensees derived any gain from the export of "whites"
and that the king, the realm, and the clothworkers lost both in
"treasure" and "honor." The conclusion stated that by requiring
the finishing to be done in England the king would gain i8d. in
custom for the imported dyestuff, and the clothworkers 20s. upon
every cloth.'
The Merchant Adventurers replied * that the kind of cloth
that was exported "white" was unable to bear the crude Eng-
lish dyeing processes, which were perfectly suitable for the cloths
'
Unwm, pp. 124-125. ' S. P. D. March, 1604, vi, 109.
' S. P. D. April 3, 1606. * S. P. D. April, 1606 (xx, 10).
THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT IO3
which the Enghsh clothworkers were then finishing for domestic

sale, as also for the new draperies. Dyeing of all cloths at home
would be expensive and worse than useless, for it would not suit the
continental taste. The merchants prophetically claimed that any
such project would only result in driving foreigners to compete
with the EngHsh in the earher as well as the later processes of manu-
facture. They pointed out ' that in Spain the war had built up
native manufactures which were eager to claim the whole Span-
ish and colonial market; that France was anxious for an excuse
to restrict the import of EngUsh cloth in order to encourage her
own cloth trade; and that Germany and the Low Countries had
superior faciHties and skill in dyeing and dressing, and were in a
favorable position to take over all branches of the industry. There-
fore, the first difficulty to surmount, if the project were to be tried,
was to find some means of exporting and disposing of
suitable
the finished cloths, for the Merchant Adventurers urged that they
would not be able to find a market for them.^ Alderman Cock-
ayne had offered to transport and sell as many cloths as the cloth-
workers could finish.' But it was several years before his proposi-
tion found acceptance. Cockayne continued his interest and stood
ready to afford to the artisan workers the capital which they needed.
With his backing they once more appealed to the crown early in
1613, and were supported by the Dyers' Company.
The trading members of the Clothworkers' Company disclaimed
all connection with the project, and they endeavored to call the
yeomanry to account.^ The situation abroad, however, favored

the merchants of the Clothworkers', rather than of the Adven-
turers', Company. The unprotected English cloth-dressing in-
dustry had already so far succeeded in the oriental markets as to
alarm the Flemings, and in 161 2 EngUsh dressed cloth was ex-
cluded from the Low Countries.' This was a serious matter for
England and added weight to Cockayne's proposals. Domestic
affairs alsofavored the project, for in 1614 James, in disgust,
dismissed the Addled Parliament, and at once undertook to look
'
S. p. D. April, 1606 (xx, uncalendared).
2
C. R. December 18, 1613; July 12, 1614.
'
S. P.D. April, 1606, XX, 9.
< See Unwin, p. 124, quoting the Clothworkers' Court Book, March 8, 161 3.
'
Durham, Relation of the Crown to Trade under James I, R. H. Soc. 1899, p. 210.
I04 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
for new
sources of revenue without the aid of Parliament, and
this scheme afforded a strong fiscal temptation. Some powerful
courtiers had been interested, the project was in harmony with
the king's economic prejudices, and it appealed strongly to the
mercantihst ministers. The draft of a possibly unpubhshed
proclamation affords an excellent illustration of the attitude of
the government. It recites the advantages and anticipates the
objections to this project, but promises that there shall be "no

stand of cloth nor abatement of prices, as may be to their pre-
judices. And therefore they may go on in the courses of their former
trading, leaving it to our care and providence to introduce this
great and happy alteration to the better, without any interrup-
tion of trade or puUing down of price in the mean time." The
king avows that he is Merchant Adventurers and'
friendly to the
not unfriendly to their foreign customers, "but only we are willing
to advance the dowry and stock of our kingdom; and wherever
we see apparent means of doing our people further good, not to
tie ourselves to the simple and positive degrees of their welfare,
but to proceed from good to better, and to make posterity beholden

to our times, for going through with that whereof our ancestors
'
have only sown the seed, and not hitherto reaped the fruits."
Cockayne's proposals were carefully considered in the Privy Coun-
cil,ând as a result the exportation of undressed cloth was pro-
hibited ' and a new company of Merchant Adventurers was an-
nounced, with Alderman Cockayne at its head. To this company

any one might subscribe, and thus be free to engage in the trade
of finished cloth. The original company of Merchant Adventurers
were thus left without an occupation, as they understood the
market too well to be wilhng to undertake to dispose of the Enghsh
finished cloths, in the regions of their intercourse. Their charter
was therefore suspended.*
In February, 1615, the privileges of the old company were for-
mally surrendered and a charter given to the new company.^ But
the new company was not yet prepared to effect the reforms for
' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. May 25, 1614.
' C. R. December 18, 1613, July 12, 1614.
' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 23, 1614.
* Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. December 2, 1614.
' Gardiner, li, p. 387 ; Unwin, p. 182.
THE CLOTH-FINISHING PROJECT I05
which it was constituted, and asked to be allowed to export un-

finished cloths till there was time to build up a trade in dressed
cloths.^ The merchants were allowed to export as many undressed
cloths as they pleased, upon undertaking to receive from the finish-
ers 6000 pieces the first year, 12,000 the next, and 18,000 the third
year.^ Even with this concession, the company handled its part
of the contract in a very unsatisfactory manner, and the Council
began to show impatience.' In order to see what terms could be
secured from the old Merchant Adventurers they were authorized
to assemble for the purpose of considering the subject.* But the
former cloth merchants adhered to their original conviction, and
would not undertake to concede more than to experiment with a
very few finished cloths.^ The new company was suffered to con-
•tinue its operations, but was ordered peremptorily to buy up an
unhmited supply of cloth which was offered by the Gloucester-
shire workers, although the company protested that the work and
material were bad." There were also -complaints from other quar-
ters about the "stand" ' of cloth.' It was seriously proposed to put
in force the most arbitrary sumptuary regulations in order to pro-
vide a home market for the cloth, since the trade was in the ut-
most confusion.' Cockayne was summoned before the Council
and told to see that the merchants devised some means to remove
the glut, "whereof it behooved them to have a care at their utter-
most peril." They were required "to resolve amongst themselves
whether they would go forward in the work of dyeing and dress-
ing." "
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, S. P. D. Febraary 23, 1615.
2 C. R. April 7, 9, 161 5.
* Bacon to James I.August 12, 161 5, February 25, 1616; Spedding's Letters of
Bacon, v, pp. 178, 256.
* S. P. D. February 7, i5i6. * S. P. D. May, 1616, Ixxx, no.
» S. P. D. August 2, 6, 1616.
' Meaning " stop " or " interruption " of trade. Cf. Johnson's Dictionary, which
quotes from Bacon " The greatest part of trade is driven by young merchants,
:
upon borrowing at interest ; so as, if the usurer either call in, or keep back his
money, there will ensue presently a great stand of trade.''

' Bacon to the king, September 13, 1616; Letters, v, p. 74.
* Lansd. 152, fol. 271 ; S. P. D. J. I, Ixxx, 108; S. P. D. November 29, 1616;
C. R. June 2, 13, 1616, September 4, 1616.

"> They replied with a long petition, which the Council ordered to be condensed.
C. R. September ii, 12, 16, 1616
Meanwhile events abroad were adding to the difficulties at
home. The Dutch made vigorous efforts to develop a weaving
industry to supply all their own needs, and offered a substantial
bounty; and other countries joined in retaliation.* The struggle
can hardly be said to have been advantageous to either party, but
from the mercantilist view which inspired the whole contest a
permanent advantage was given to the foreigners, who seem to have
retained the industries inaugurated during the struggle.^ The
Low Countries were in a position to disorganize seriously the trade
of England with a large part of Europe, for the Staple was at
Middleburg. When the English plan town was understood, that
at once began to put impediments in the way of the new com-
pany. For example, the new company had been authorized to
transport a certain number of white cloths which it had been
forced to buy up before the suspension of the old company had
gone into effect.' Thereupon the burgesses of the mart town con-
fiscated the goods, as the property of interlopers.* Somewhat later
the Privy Council yielded to the pressure of the new company,
and promised to remove the mart to some other town.* But the
company did not continue its existence much longer. In 1617 the
new company resigned its charter," and the old company of Mer-
chant Adventurers was restored to its former privileges.' The
king acknowledged that "time had discovered many inabihties
which could not at first be seen," and that "the grounds proposed
by the undertakers of that work consisted more in hopes than in
effects." Thus ignominiously ended what is justly regarded as
the most ambitious attempt in the reign of James I, to "develop the
resources of the realm and render it economically independent."'
* S. P. D. September 11, 1616; Gardiner, ii, p. 388; Unwin, pp. 190, 191; Dur-
ham, p. 218.
2 Misselden, Free Trade, 1622, p. 41 ; Cunningham, ii, p. 233, n. 9.
' C. R. July 12, 1614.
* C. R. September 8, 1614. See Appendix N.
' C. R. September 18, 27, 1616.
» C. R. July 9, 1617.
' Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. August 12, 1617.
* Cunningham, ii, p. 294.
CHAPTER IX
THE IRON INDUSTRY
Without the aid of monopolies officially conferred, iron- works
had sprung up in Sussex, Surrey, and Kent in the southeast, and

in the Forest of Dean.^ The plants in these parts and elsewhere
were estimated to number about eight hundred at the beginning
of the seventeenth century.^ Most of these industries were under-
taken, as far as one can judge, by immigrants who brought with
them continental methods. They smelted the iron near the sources
of supply of iron ore and wood. Statutes and proclamations, as
well as other contemporary evidence,' testify to the anxiety which
was felt concerning the destruction of forests by the iron-furnaces.
The rising price of fuel in London led to an act in 1581 * forbidding
the erection of new iron-works within a radius of twenty-two miles
of London or within fourteen miles of the Thames.
There were
other reasons for keen anxiety, for was feared that the navy
it
would be imperiled by the consumption of timber for industrial

purposes. These fears may have been well founded; and there
is good reason to think that severe measures were actually needed
in order to preserve the forests, for the art of forestry was not
understood, and the too rapid felHng of trees would have brought
grave inconveniences, if nothing worse. The problem was not how
to estabhsh a new industry in the country, but how to reconstitute
one already established. The stimulus to experiment would have
been strong, even without the hope of patents, for the ironmasters
were feehng the need of a new and cheaper fuel.^
One patent ° was taken out in Elizabeth's reign for the use of
1 Hewins, English Trade and Finance in the Seventeenth Century, 1892, p. I2.
' Sturtevant, Metallica, 1612, p. 3 in ed. 1858. See Appendix S.
' Norden, Surveyor's Dialogue, 1607, p. 212.
» 23 Eliz. c. 5, sec. 3. See also i Eliz. c. 15 27 Eliz.
; 19 39 Eliz. c. 19.
i,. ;
' Compare the similar and simultaneous difficulties in the glass industry, above,
pages 67 f£.
« Pat. 31 Eliz. pt. 8 (October 9, 1589), to Proctor and Peterson.

'

coal instead of charcoal in iron-smelting. But the patentees must
have failed, for heard of any work undertaken by them.
nothing is
Another patent was asked ' through the intercession of the Count-
ess of Cumberland, but this project also failed to bear fruit. A
similar project in 1607 received a patent but accompHshed no-
thing.^ The next project became famous, not because of its suc-
cess, but because its inventor was an accomphshed advertiser.
This was the plan of Simon Sturtevant who in 1612 received a
patent for thirty-one years. The grant included privileges for a
great variety of furnaces, mills, and machines that he claimed to
have perfected. He professed to explain them in a book ' which
he pubKshed at the time. This is often referred to as the first
"patent specification," but it hardly deserves that title. Its partial

resemblance to specifications is accidental, and the practice of
formally reveaUng the exact nature of an invention did not become
common till long afterward. Sturtevant's treatise, moreover, gave
no really inteUigible explanation of what was intended to be done.
It might more appropriately be called the first "prospectus." In
it the author set forth the many wonderful feats which he promised
to accomphsh. He was evidently bidding for investors. He ex-
pected to make
£33,000, chiefly by smelting iron with sea-coal.
At his suggestion, the grant distributed the ownership into thirty-
three shares. Of these ten were reserved to the king, five for Prince
Henry, two for the Duke of York, and one for Viscount Rochester.
The remaining fifteen went to the patentee, who disposed of all
but one share to capitalists.* Sturtevant's patent was revoked the
next year on account of its failure. John Rolvenson received one
in his stead, which likewise came to nought.
The struggles of Dud Dudley to introduce the art of smelting with
coal form one of the most interesting of the industrial romances
of the period. The story of his efforts and of the opposition which
he had to encounter sounds more like the episodes of the latter
part of the eighteenth century than the first half of the seventeenth.
' Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Cal. Salisb. Papers, v, p. 159, March, 1595.
' Pat. to Chauntrell and Astell, Docq. December, 1606; Grant Bk. January 30,
1607.
' Treatise of Metallica, 1612. See Appendix S. This gives text of the patent.
* Ihid. pp. 3-4, 6-12, in ed. of 1858. (Appendix S.)
' Rolvenson, Treatise of Metallica, 1613.
THE IRON INDUSTRY IO9
Dudley left a record of his trials, which is the chief source of
information concerning the man who came nearer than any other
of his century to succeeding in this task.* His efforts began in 1619,
when he abruptly terminated a university career to undertake the
management of his father's iron-works in Worcestershire. He
immediately saw that there was a pressing need for a new fuel
supply, as the neighboring wood was growing scant. He therefore
endeavored to utilize the coal deposits that lay near at hand. He
secured, through Lord Dudley, a patent for his invention, without
''
disclosing his secret. His patent was exempted by name in the

Statute of Monopolies. His first reverse came early, his works
being completely ruined by a flood. He restored the works, and
claims to have succeeded in producing good iron by the new
process, selHng at £4 instead of the usual price, £,1, for pig iron;
and ;£i2 instead of £15 and ;£i8 for bars. His own evidence is
confirmed by the jealousy of his rivals, who in Worcestershire,

and in two places in successively, ejected him by
Staffordshire,
and troubled him with Htigation.'
violence, destroyed his tools,
Up to this point his privileges from the crown had been ample,
and his lack of .success was due to the fact that he was not ade-
quately protected in the exploitation of them. But he was not
altogether free from difficulties with government, for there were
others who were seeking like privileges. Chief among these was
one Sir Phihbert Vernatti, of Dutch extraction, who petitioned for
a patent. Dudley's partners objected that this would be an infringe-
ment of their patent. As might have been expected, it was the Privy
Council that assumed to judge the matter. The difficulty was that,
Dudley's process being secret, it was impossible to decide as to
whether his methods were being employed by Vernatti. The Coun-
cil ordered * that both parties should deposit vnth the clerk of the
Privy Council sealed explanations of their respective inventions.
Two years later Dudley's partners petitioned against Vematti's
patent, which they claimed was being used only to trouble them.
The Council ordered Vernatti to appear before them, but he de-
1 Dudley, Metallum Martis, or Iron made with Pit-coal, Sea-coal, etc. 1665.
2 Text of the patent in Appendix T.
' Metallum Martis, ed. of 1858, pp. 62-67.
* C. R. April 6, 1636.
no ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
faulted and the patent was nullified.' Dudley secured a re-issue
of his patent ^ in 1638, in the face of strong opposition. He had
no favorable opportunity for prosecuting his undertakings during
the dozen years of disorder that followed.^ Once more, in 1651,
Dudley tried to set up an iron-furnace, this time near Bristol, but
was again disappointed.* He spent ;i£7oo, then quarreled with
his partners, and his royahst record was used against him in legal
actions. His ambition was finally checked at the Restoration,
when he was refused a new patent for which he applied.'''
Dudley admitted that he was never able to produce large quan-
tities of iron by the use of sea-coal, but claimed that this was due
to the inadequacy of his plants, and that he could produce iron
that was better and cheaper than the charcoal iron. But his secrets
died with him," and it was not until 1738 that the use of coal in the
smelting of iron was successfully undertaken.' Dudley's experi-
ments, while interesting, can lead us to no positive conclusions
concerning the results of the patent system. He certainly was
anxious for patents, and at the Restoration the failure to secure a
privilege discouraged him from proceeding further. On the other
hand, before his rather unusual disappointments he would prob-
ably have undertaken as much without a patent as with it. While
he entertained hopes of success, the conditions at large were amply
sufficient to induce him to introduce desirable changes. There
was no reason, however, why he was not justly entitled to the added
encouragement of a patent duly limited. But the "consideration,"
which is so important in modern grants, was wanting. He did not
receive patents in return for reveahng his secrets, and whether his
' Metallum Martis, p. 64.

* Pat. 14 Car. I, pt. 43 (May 2, 1638). Appendix U.
' Metallum Martis, pp. 64, 65.
* Similar undertakings enjoyed two of the few patents granted during the Inter-
regnum. Jeremy Buck had his patent sanctioned by Parliament. He made three
attempts but failed. In 1647, Cromwell granted a patent to Capt. John Copley who
sunk several hundred pounds to no purpose. Dudley was invited to inspect the
plant and condemned it. Metallum Martis, p. 66.
' Metallum Martis,
pp. 64-66.
* Powle's Account
of the Iron Works of the Forest of Dean, Phil. Trans. 1677, pp.
931-936, and Yarranton's England''s Improvement by Land and Sea, 1 681, pt. ii,
pp. 159-169, show that, after Dudley, charcoal rather than coke was being used.
' See Diet. Nat. Biog. article Darby (Abram).
1
THE IRON INDUSTRY 1 1
privileges were useless to him, or prejudicial to the country at

large, cannotbe determined, because these patents were not en-
joyed under normal conditions. After serious difficulties in estab-
Hshing his new undertaking, it was suddenly paralyzed by the
Civil War.
The problem which the ironmasters had when they tried
to solve,
to employ coal in smelting, was to discover a means of cheaply
reducing the coal to a satisfactory fusing agent. Two solutions
were possible, and apparently both methods were tried. Either
the coal must be refined, or an unusually hot blast must be apphed.
Most of the experiments of the period seem to have been with
the former method. Dudley apparently used both in combination.
Nothing was accomplished in the direction of obtaining a blast
giving sufficient heat to make the unrefined coal useful, and it is
impossible to determine whether the refining of coal was success-
ful enough to make it really suitable for smelting purposes. The
production of some sort of coke was seen to be necessary, but
this task was as difiicult as that of using the coke after it was
prepared. The successful production of coke at a later day seems
to have owed nothing to the experiments of this time. Whether or
not anything like the later process of coking was in use, it is im-
possible to decide, for the processes were kept secret. The appar-
ent failure to produce a satisfactory article may or may not have
been entirely due to the improper way in which the coke was em-
ployed. Certainly there was no lack of experiments. The number
of patents was out of all proportion to the results.'
Out of a total of 103 patents for invention between the years 1620 and 1640
'
there were 23 for furnaces, ovens, smelting, and refining. See Specifications of
Patents for Inventions.
CHAPTER X
THE SALT MONOPOLIES
It now remains to consider in detail some of the experiments with

monopolies created after the passage of the act of 1624. In a study
of the industrial results of the system, the shortness of the period
which remained before the Long Parliament and its radical meas-
ures, renders the history of most of these monopohes less signi-
ficant than that of the privileges which originated in the reigns of
Elizabeth and James I. But in at least two instances under
Charles I rigid monopolies were conferred in articles of such inelastic
demand, and the measures of enforcement were so vigorous that
the few years of Personal Government were sufficient to establish
the new upon as strong a foundation as any of the
corporations
previous privileges had enjoyed. The soap corporations will be
discussed in the next chapter. In this the salt monopohes will be
considered.
Salt evaporation had been carried on, upon the east coast, prob-
ably before the reign of Ehzabeth, but this industry had never
been important, and had been entirely given over by reason of
foreign competition, — Scottish, French, and Spanish salt being
better and cheaper.' In the early part of the reign of Elizabeth
several patents were issued for new inventions in the manufacture
of salt.^ But during the last fifteen years of that reign Thomas
Wilkes enjoyed a monopoly of the salt trade of the east coast.'
Complaints of injury to trade and shipping were sent in imme-
diately thereafter from the eastern ports.* It was this monopoly
which was the chief grievance in the Parhament of 1601, at which
time it was claimed that Wilkes and his deputy had raised the price
> Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68.
* Page, Denizations, p. xlix; Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, p. 149; January, 1900,
p. 47.
' Pat. 27 Eliz. pt. 6 (September i, 1585) Pat. 28 Eliz. pt. 5 (February 20, 1586).
;
* C. R. March 22, 1587 ; Lansd. 47, nos. 67, 68, 69; Lansd. 52, no. 20.
3
THE SALT MONOPOLIES 1

1
of salt from i4d. to as many shillings per bushel.' The iniquities of

the patent were acknowledged by the queen after the debate on
monopoUes, and in her subsequent proclamation it was especially
revoked without trial at law, being found abusive both in matter
and in execution.^ The next monarch did not revive any such
patent,' and it was left for his successor to create a new monopoly,
with far greater privileges, under company organization.
Early in Charles's reign an agitation was commenced for a new
monopoly similar to the one Wilkes had had. The circumstances
under which the scheme originated may be briefly recounted. Salt
being a commodity in which cost of carriage represented a large
proportion of the price, the supply was drawn from the numerous
sources which could most conveniently supply the demands of
different locahties. Spain, France, and Scotland exported salt
into England. Some was prepared at home, but this was relatively
small in amount and not cheap or good. England, France, and
Spain then became involved in warfare, and suppUes of salt were
dij05cult to obtain, especially after the English destroyed the salt-
works on the Isle of R^, and the French those at Rochelle. To

guard their supply, the French prohibited the exportation of salt,
and the consequent drain upon the Spanish supply led to a simi-
lar edict there. Finally, in 1630 a proclamation was issued by
Charles forbidding the export of English salt, a not very neces-
sary measure.^ When was removed, the French and
the occasion
Spanish edicts were suspended and salt, became cheap again in
England, costing ^^3 or f^-^ los. per wey ^ for English and French
salt, and £4 for Spanish. The revival of foreign competition had
a natural result, and the English salt-makers, to protect the pro-

sperity they had enjoyed during the war, proposed a tax on
imported salt.
The form which protection ultimately took was the creation of

a close monopoly for a group of men who, it was claimed, knew
nothing of the salt business, but who were ready to share their
profits liberally with the king. A proposal was submitted by these
' See Appendix

> D'Ewes, p. 647. J.
' For several patents for new processes, see Ordish, Antiquary, July, 1885.
* Davies, Answer to Printed Papers by the late Patentees, 1641, pp. 2ff.
' =
At London a wey 40 bu., a bu. = 10 gal. The measure differed at each port.
projectors for the monopoly of salt, asking to be incorporated,
with the exclusive privilege of supplying all the salt for the east
coast, from Southampton to Newcastle. They were to exclude
continental salt and to make an agreement with the Scottish pro-
ducers. An imposition of los. per wey was to be paid to the king,
the petitioners undertaking to sell at f^/^ or ;,£5 per London wey.'
The Privy Council approved the petition, and at once set down
elaborate provisions for the indentures, and wrote to the Scottish
salt-makers ordering them to join the new company or to lease
their salt-pans to it, for "it is necessary that a work of this nature
should be under one rule and government, lest being distracted the
whole might run into confusion." Early in 1636, accordingly,
a charter of incorporation was granted to the Company of Salt-
Makers of South and North Shields.^ Acting under authority,
they appropriated all the works and pans of the Tynemouth.
Thereafter the eastern prices were from £4 15 s. to £6, while west
of Southampton the price remained at f_^2) ^^'^ less.' During the
first year of operations the eastern fishing towns experienced great
hardships from the dearth of salt. The Privy Council was obliged
to pass^ special orders of reUef. Not only were the subjects in-
jured, but the consequences of the patent were visited upon the
king, and the Council recorded "that now since foreign salt has
been prohibited, there hath not been enough brought into the port
of London by the EngUsh and Scottish corporations to furnish the
city of London and to supply his Majesty's occasions and expenses
^
in household as heretofore."
In the charter of the company there had been a saving clause
to protect the undertaking of Nicholas Murford, who had previously
obtained a patent for a new invention in salt preparation." Differ-
ences now arose between him and the company with regard to
the duty upon Scottish salt.' The difficulty was adjusted the more
easily because internal dissensions had been stirred up in the
company; and this was made the occasion for resigning their
' C. R. February 22, 1635. ' Docq. January, 1636.

' Davies, pp. 6, 7.
* C. R. November 13, 1636; May 30, November 27, 1637 ; December 19, 1638.
<•
C. R. May 9, 1637. ' Docq. November, 1632.
' C. R. July 15, 1638.
15
patent, as the majority were weary of the opposition which the
monopoly was encountering, and perhaps of the policy of the man-
agers. The salt-makers of Shields resumed their pans, and there-
after, for a time, EngUsh and Scottish salt was sold in London at
£3.^ Almost at once, however, it was planned to transfer the mono-

poly privileges to Murford.^ But during the negotiations Thomas
Horth, who had been a chief projector of the old patent, together
with those of his associates who still desired to remain in the busi-
ness, made an appHcation for a new incorporation. The Privy
Council then held a meeting to consider the rival propositions as
well as the protests of the fishing towns against any monopoly.'
It was voted to refer the subject to the lord treasurer and Lord
Cottington, who reported in favor of Horth's proposition,* on the
ground that the latter promised a fixed price, and because he
depended upon fire rather than evaporation in preparing the salt.
A day of hearing was then given to opponents of the project.^ The
Cinque Ports, Southampton, Poole, Weymouth, Melcomb Regis,
and Yarmouth, as well as London, sent representatives to protest,
but their objections were promptly disposed of. "His Majesty
and the Board conceiving it to be a matter of great advantage
to the kingdom that salt made within his Majesty's dominions
should be preferred and used before any foreign salt, and finding
upon debate that salt made in his Majesty's dominions is sufficient
for all uses, did therefore order that the said business be forth-
°
with estabh'shed."
In January of the next year Horth and his associates received
a new patent,' which was supported during that year by numerous
warrants of assistance, summonses, and imprisonments by order
of the Council.' Nicholas Murford was one of those imprisoned
for "animating others with their refractoriness and obstinacy,"
' Davies, p. 7.
2 S. P. D. C. nos. 8 and 9.
I, cccviii, The calendar assigns an incorrect date.
' July 29, 1638. From A True Remonstrance of the State of the Salt Business,
London, 1641. In Brit. Mus. volume of tracts collected under the title Petitions
and Remonstrances, etc., 1638-75, fol. 221. (George III, Library.) Also in Soc.
Ant. Coll. Broadsides.
• True Remonstrance, date of August, 1638. ' C. R. December 5, 1638.
• True Remonstrance, date of December 19, 1638. ' Davies, p. 7.
« C. R. Charles I,xvi, 211, 497, 595, 668 ; xvii, pt. i, 197, 198.
Il6 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
and was given that Murford's work should now cease
direction
altogether.' But Horth soon found himself in trouble. John Duke,
farmer of the customs on salt, and a partner in the Salt Company,
complained to the Council that Horth concealed from his partners
the accounts and reckonings and all knowledge of its transactions;
that he removed officers without the consent of his partners; that
he admitted foreign salt upon arbitrary terms for his own benefit;
and that he had paid no rent to the king.^ As a result of an in-
vestigation, extents were sued out for the payment of the rent due.'
The second was issued only a very short time
Shields salt patent
before the proclamation numerous patents and com-
recalling
missions, which was a measure taken by the Privy Council in an-
ticipation of the meeting of Pariiament. That proclamation, while
it accomplished or announced the sweeping away of a large number
of aggravating patents, did not involve those for soap and salt.
But the salt patent did not long survive, for the Long Parliament
called in the patent and thereafter the trade was free to all.*
The evidence as to the effect of the Shields monopoly rests
mainly upon the petition of the company ^ and the reply to it."
On behalf of the patentees it was claimed that at all times a suf-
ficient quantity had been provided, and at low prices. It was
charged that the "engrossers, forestallers, and regrators" of Lon-

don, since the surrender of the patent, had sold at prices higher
than those of the patentees. The retailers, refiners, and "some
western merchants trading to Newfoundland" were said to be the
chief opponents of "this native manufacture, which all other
provinces and states do so much cherish when they can erect any
native manufacture within their own principalities to give employ-
ment to their own natives, that they prohibit the importation of
any such commodity upon confiscation of ship and goods." Their
answer to the charge of monopoly was that the charter was sub-
ject to revocation by king or Council if found inconvenient, "it
debars no man from making that formerly had any works,' no
' C. R. December 13, 1639. ^ C. R. February 29, 1640.

' C. R. April 12, 1640. * November, 1640. See Davies, p. 17.
6 True Remonstrance. ^ Davies.
' This was not exactly true, for the Council interfered with Independent pro
ducers.
;
man from erecting of new works, only requires them to be of the

corporation and to pay the duty imposed by his Majesty and to
serve the subject at the rates agreed on.* If a monopoly be a sole
'
vendition, the society are not the sole venders, for all salt retailers
come and buy at the works." " The reply to this peti-
are free to
tion was by a salt merchant, but by a fish merchant,
written, not
who may be presumed fairly to represent the consumers, and his
evidence is less subject to suspicion. The moderate price of salt
in London in 1639 was explained as due to the Scottish invasion,
as a result of which salt from Scotland was put on the London
market at such a low rate as to defeat the purposes of the patentees,
who demanded nearly twice the market price. But in September,
October, and November, 1640, just before Parliament called for
the patent, the price was raised to and £8. After the inter- ^
vention of Parliament, the price again dropped to ;£3.*
The salt by
ambition to develop the native manufacture of
means monopoly and of prohibition of import resulted only in
of
disappointment. Between the years 1640 and 1660 the salt-works
' Those who were already producing at Newcastle and in Scotland were invol-
untarily drawn into the company.
^ The company did not have any monopoly of the retail trade, but it had the
exclusive right to supply at wholesale in all eastern ports. It controlled importa-
tion as well as manufacture. The independent producers were apparently engaged
in refining rather than evaporating. The company was preparing to exclude the
independent producers from this also.
' Notice also this defense of the salt monopoly, which attempts to show the
importance of independence of foreign nations " If possibly it may be compassed :
and made in England to be offered hereafter when brought to full perfection at the
same or somewhat a higher price, than we used to be served from abroad, question-
less itbe good policy rather than expect it from others who will deny it us
will
in greatest need, and we found both unskillful and unprovided of most of the
materials to furnish us therewith. And besides 'making it ourselves we shall
. . .
not only have it at a constant price, which before did much vary, rising and falling
as more or less store came from abroad, which was so much the more hazardous in
regard many ships brought it only when they could get no other employment."
Robinson, England^! Safety in Trade's Increase, London, 164T, p. 19.
* At Cambridge, according to Rogers's figures, Agric. and Prices, vi, pp. 408,
409, the usual price of salt was 13s. 4d. per quarter from 1630 to 1635. In the fol-
lowing years, the prices were : 1635, l6s. ; 1636, 19s. ; 1637, i8s. 8d. ; 1638, i8s. 8d.
1639, 14s. 8d. and 19s. lod. ; 1640, 27s. 4d., later i6s. ; 1641, 13s. to i6s. 2d. For
Oxford, Rogers notes occasional purchases " at unheard of rates, at from 40s. to
50s. the quarter." (v, p. 434.)
Il8 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY
at Shields were dependent entirely upon protective duties for their
successful competition with Scottish producers. Whenever the latter
were put on equal terms, the industry at Shields languished. Dur-

ing the Union of the two countries under the Protector, the industry
was completely ruined.* The salt industry was not carried on suc-
cessfully in England until after the discovery, in 1670, of rock salt
at Droitwich.^
' Lansd. 253, no. 17. Reproduced in Richardson's Reprints, vol. iiL It is there
incorrectly cited as Lansd. 258.

' See Cunningham, ii, p. 310.
CHAPTER XI
THE SOAP CORPORATIONS
As has already been indicated, the inception of the soap project

was formed toward the end of the reign of James I.' Sir John
Bourchier's protegees, Jones and Palmer, received a patent for
hard soap, including the right to search all soap-houses to prevent
infringement of their privilege.^ After this was granted, there was
a correspondence of several months with the government of the
city of London. Secretary Conway wrote to the lord mayor of the
invention, which would result in "saving many thousands yearly
to the kingdom, to the increase of the stock of the kingdom and
furthering the balance of trade." ' But as the soap-boilers objected
to it, a public trial was ordered.* The aldermen appointed a com-
mittee,^ which reported the result of the trial, expressing some
doubt whether the soap was made wholly of Enghsh materials:
"With much labor it will wash coarse linen (if it be used by skill-
ful washers acquainted therewith) as well as the best sort of ordin-
ary soap used, but far less sweet and merchantable, and it is not
fit for fine Hnen, as it was done to
destroys the cloth." " Little
exploit the privilege until 1631, when it was confirmed' and a com-
pany was incorporated for the purpose of buying up and work-
ing the patent.* The new society, known as the Company of Soap-
makers of Westminster, undertook to work the new invention
1 See above, pages 93, 94.
2 Pats. 20 Jac. I, pt. 12, no. 10; 21 Jac. I, pt. 5, no. 2 (Febraary 23, 1623). Ap-
pendix W.
3 Rem. March 30, 1624. The phrase "balance of trade " had just been popular-
ized at this time. See my article in the Quart. Jour. Econ., November, 1905, on
this subject.
* Rep. April 6, 1624.
5 Rem. April, 1624. (See Anal. Index, vi, p. 38.)
» Rem. May 2, 1624.

'
Pat. 7 Car. I, pt. 10 (December 17, 1631). To Jones et al.
' Patent January 20, 1632.

and to produce 5000 tons of soap yearly, paying to the king ^^
per ton or ;/^20,ooo per annum. Tallow and ashes were no longer
to be exported nor potash imported, but the company's exclusive
privilege was still only the searching and testing of soap.' The
latter privilege, however, soon proved to be a powerful weapon
against independent producers. The company's rights were made

more valuable by a proclamation ^ which forbade the importa-
tion of soap or potash, and all domestic soap was to be made only
with vegetable oil. This was a test that none of the independent
soap-boilers could stand, and it did not much matter whether or
not the members of the company confined themselves to rape and
olive oils, because the searching was in their own hands.
Shortly afterward an information was exhibited ' in Star Cham-
ber against Overman and fifteen others of London for unlawful
assembly, for infringing the patent of the Westminster Company,
for contempt of proclamations, for using fish-oil, refusing the as-
say, and conspiring to raise prices. After some htigation, the Star
Chamber decreed * that the offenders should be committed to the
Fleet during the king's pleasure, disabled to trade in future, and
fined in sums ranging from ;£5oo to ;£iSoo each. They remained
in prison till February and April in the next year, before which
time two had died in restraint. The fines were not mitigated
nor suspended, as was usual, but measures were taken for coUec-
tion,° and a general order was set down in Star Chamber, aiming
to inspire greater fear. This decree amplified the preceding regu-

lations, directing that no new masters should undertake to work
without consent of the Star Chamber, that no soap should be made

outside of a one-mile radius of London, Westminster, and Bris-
tol, and that all soap-making should be under the rule and gov-
ernment of the company." The Council, in order to raise the repu-

tation of the new soap, ordered another trial in the city before
the lord mayor,' who after a public test certified in more favorable
'
Pat. Rolls, Indenture 8 Car. I, pt. 5 (May 3, 1632).
'
Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. June 28, 1632.
'
November 22, 1632. Short and True Relation of the Soap Business, p. 7.
*
May 10, 1633. Relation, pp. 7-10; Rushworth, ii, pt. ii, app. pp. 54, 55.
^
August 23, 1633. Relation, p. 11.
'
Rushworth, ii, pt. ii, app. pp. 60-62, 109-115.
'
C. R. December 6, 1633.
THE SOAP CORPORATIONS 121
terms than his predecessor had done,^ and a fresh proclamation

was issued, reciting the mayor's certificate, " by which it appeareth
that the soap made by the society is good, sweet, and serviceable
for our people." ^ Strict command was given for the observance of
all orders and decrees in this business. Independent soap-boilers
continued to be dealt with. Some who had been imprisoned were
now upon making submission, and by giving bonds were
released
freed from the payment of further fines. ^ Some attempted to test
the character of the monopoly by claiming admission into the
company, on the ground that they had served the full seven years'
apprenticeship and were now duly quahfied as masters. But the
refusal of the company to admit them demonstrated the really
exclusive nature of the company.^
A new proclamation was then issued which took cognizance
of the rising price of soap, and commissions were constituted to
"rectify" prices and to search for offenders. The corporation
was to receive the benefit of fines collected from dehnquents. The
attorney-general was charged to proceed in Star Chamber against
obstinate offenders. A general prohibition was laid upon all manu-
facture of soap in private houses, even for private uses. Finally, the
Westminster Company was exempted from the general prohibition
against the use of fish-oil, and was allowed to make soap by the
old method with this kind of oil, for the use of dyers, wool-combers,
and others who hew soap.^ Orders in Coun-
specially objected to the
cil were also set down to restrain importation, and blank warrants
were entrusted to the company for use against any offenders." The
next proclamation,' while renewing the former regulations, added
one which showed how devoid of value were the nominal privileges
of the independent soap-boilers, for all grocers, salters, chandlers,
and other retailers were forbidden to buy or sell any soap except
that procured from the corporation. Shortly after this, the privi-
>
C. R. December 29, 1633. See ako Gardiner, viii, p. 73. Cf. above, page 119.
'
Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. January 26, 1634.
3 Relation, p. 15. See also C. R. 1633-4 and 1634-5 (ix, 426, 428, 462, 501, 532,
550, 607, 635,637; X, 116, 122, 133-144. 279. 296, 314.315)-
*
Relation, p. 16.
5
Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July 13, 1634.
°
Relation, p. 19, September 29, 1634.
'
Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. January 20, 1635.
leges of the company were still further strengthened by a new
covenant,' according to the terms of which they agreed to make
5000 tons annually, confined to three houses. They were to operate
a joint stock, paying the king ^d per ton. In return for the higher
profit to the king, they were to be allowed to charge a higher price
for their soap.
The difficulty of preventing violation of this very unpopular
monopoly was such that the company and the Privy Council were
at length constrained officially to recognize infringements, and a
commission was issued to certain nominees of the Westminster Com-
pany to compound with offenders.^ The hostiUty of local author-
ities was so great that enforcement could not be entrusted to the
ordinary magistrates. The soap monopoly well illustrates the

devices by which Charles attempted to overcome the long-standing
difficulty of securing an effective local administration of the govern-
ment's unpopular measures. Not only were commissions frequently

resorted to, but an attempt seems to have been made to develop
an entirely dependent staff of officers, subject to crown command.
The messengers of the Chamber answered this want, and they were
used with increasing frequency.' This poUcy was of course calcu-
lated to intensify local bitterness against the "popish soap.'"*
It was at this time, however, that politics within the king's court
were undergoing a change. Hitherto, notwithstanding the fact
that the company had not fulfilled its obligations to the Treasury
and that it had failed even to satisfy its own objects, it had been
protected and upheld through the influence of its patron. Sir Richard
Weston, who had become lord treasurer and Earl of Portland.
This was also in the face of the opposition of Archbishop Laud
and his faction. After Portland died. Laud was still unsuccessful,
partly through poor tactics, in overthrowing the Westminster Com-
pany.^ The independent soap-boilers offered far better terms for
the privilege of resuming their occupation, and for the revocation
* Relation,'^. 23, April 12, 1636.

' S. P. D. December 18, 1636; Relation, p. 24.
= See C. R. June 16, 1637; S. P. B. July, 1637.
* The popular antagonism to the Westminster Company as a Catholic insti-
tution was understood by an Italian then resident in England. See Penzarii's letter
(Februanr^")' '^35'
q"°tE<l W Gardiner, viii, p. 74, note, from the R. O. Transcripts.
* Gardiner, viii, pp. 71 ff, 284.
23
of the Westminster charter/ but without success. Cottington, who
represented Portland's policy, was too powerful. But in 1637 Laud
succeeded through the friendship of Juxon, the new lord treasurer.
Laud's prot^gês, the independent London soap-boilers, were incor-
porated on agreement to buy out the Westminster Company for
"^
£43,000 and promising -f^ per ton to the king, or double the amount
originally promised by the Westminster Company, and ^2 per
ton more than that which had been recently promised ' in order to
check Laud's scheme.
This ended the career of the Westminster Company. What-
ever may be said in justification of other monopohes of the period,
opinion is unanimous in condemning this one.^ Workmen and
masters had been forced out of their accustomed employment,
and prices had been raised very high,' notwithstanding regula-
tions. As government could succeed in its high-handed
far as the
course, the company was able to dominate the whole trade at will.
In spite of protestations to the contrary, the company was clearly
in possession of a monopoly in every reasonable sense of the word.
The organization as a company was a mere subterfuge to evade
the Statute of Monopolies. It mattered little to tradesmen or the
pubHc whether the monopoly was conferred by a single charter or
patent, or whether it was conferred by successive measures which
in their sum created a monopoly. Monopoly was not written in
the charter, but with importation prohibited, as well as the export-
ation of raw materials, with absolute and unrestricted right of
search and assay vested in the discretion of the company, with the
prohibition to all others to use important raw materials, which —
the company might freely use, — and the requirement that middle-
men should deal in no soap but that of the company, no more rigid
monopoly could have been asked or desired.
'
Laud to Wentworth, June 12, 1635 : Laud's Works, viii, p. 138.
2 Patents, May 22, 1637, July 3, 1637. » See above, page 122.
* See Cunningham (ii, p. 307), who usually views the monopoly policy sympa-
thetically.
5 Prices were raised on numerous occasions. According to the Westminster
Company's last covenant, they sold soft soap at £1 14s. 8d. per bbl. which had
been sold before the monopoly at 50s. or 54s. for what was claimed to be of better
quality. " Crown " soap, the company's specialty, was sold at £i, 1 6s. per bbl. in-
stead of £2i 4S- or £,Z 6s. See Relation, p. 23.

When after 1639 popular indignation against monopolies found
free expression, the soap proceedings shared with those of wine
and salt in' encountering the bitterest condemnation. In return
for the hardships entailed good of any
by the monopohes, httle
sort resulted. The company did not appear to prosper,' and the
king received httle or nothing till its affairs were wound up.^
Then he probably cleared something, but this came out of the
new company and was a charge upon future earnings, or prices
to consumers. The monopolists, however, must really have gained
a large amount notwithstanding their difficulties. They were
obHged to pay nothing for their privileges in cash, and their rents
to the king based upon sales appear not to have been paid. Yet
the monopoly of the industry, even if not strictly enforced, must
have been worth something to them. Finally they received ;£43,ooo
to resign an undertaking to which they had contributed nothing
except possibly the patented inventions, which they do not seem to
have resigned or made public. The £43,000 was paid for "good-
will" purely, for the new London Company had to pay £;20,oô
for the plant and materials.' From the £â,-^,ooo should be deducted
;£8ooo paid to the king,* ;£6ooo for law-suits,' leaving nearly ;^30,ooo
clear profit " in addition to whatever gains may have arisen between
1632 and 1637 by a monopoly of so essential a commodity.
For the profits of the company, whatever they were, it is safe
to say that the consumers paid every farthing, since the new com-
pany, consisting of the old soap-makers, succeeded in maintaining
its power for a long time. It is not surprising to find that the old
soap-makers who had to pay so dearly for their restoration to their
trade should have been very insistent upon the new privileges
conferred upon them, and it was only natural that they should
shift the expense of the transaction upon the community. At all
1 S. P. D. September 29, 1634. ' S. P. D. June 21, 1637.

' Relation, p. 25. * S. P. D. June 21, 1637.
° The company's own estimate, Relation, p. 26.
' A few thousand of this went to Portland directly, in the form of bribes. See
Gardiner, viii, p. 76; Laud's Works, vii, p. 155. Whether the entire amount of
;f43,ooo was ever received may be questioned. In 1641, the House of Commons
passed n. resolution nullifying the contract. C. J. October30, 1641. But in 1656
the payment of the entire sum was used as an argument on behalf of the London
Company. See below, page 127.
25
events, they were soon engaged in as severe and uncompromising
a policy as their predecessors.* And upon
the peculiar conditions
which their rights rested rendered the new company exceptionally
fortunate in the succeeding years. The prot^gês of Laud, the
original soap-makers who had been struggling against the West-
minster Company, were incorporated as a fully organized society
with a monopoly of engaging in the industry and taking appren-
tices. The king had every reason to support the new company with
even more vigor than the old. He proved his zeal by a fresh pro-
clamation announcing the new company, reciting the terms of the
''
agreement, and exhorting obedience. Everything that effort could

accomplish was done by the Privy Council to prevent illicit manu-
facture.' The London Company was spared from the revocation
of monopolies in 1639,^ and in the next year the king prepared to
authorize the companywhatever prices they chose, and
to sell at
even suspended their obligations to him.^ But by this time the
power had passed to Parliament, then sitting.
The London Company was as successful in obtaining recogni-
tion under the Long Parliament and the Protectorate, as under
Charles. There was constant and even violent opposition, but
the privileges were not recalled. How and thoroughly
steadily
they were protected, itwould not be safe to say from the evidence
at hand, but there is no doubt that the privileges were important
enough to make the illicit producers insecure in their position. Sev-
eral explanations may be given for the survival of this monopoly.
In the first place, its character was moderately democratic, since
were granted not to a few intruders in the
theoretically its rights
industry, but to the mass of actual workers who had exercised the
trade originally in London, as also in Bristol and in York, for
the company was operating in the two latter places by 1640.° A
second explanation discloses the possible operation of a weightier
motive. The importance of the company may have been due to
' Gardiner, viii, p. 284.
2 Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. December 28, 1637.
3 See C. R. xiv-xix, 1637-1640, indices, article "soap." See also S. P. D. Sep-
tember, December 31, 1639; May 13, June 17, September 23, October 14, 1640.
See also Cal. S. P. D. indices, 1636-7 and 1637, art. " Soapmakers, unauthorized."
* See Appendices Q. and R.
»
S. P. D. November i, 1640.
" S. P. D. March 30, 1640.
the fact that it faciUtated the collection of the excise. Soap was
excised in 1643/ and there was also a tax upon the raw materials.
The temptation to evade taxation was strong, for unexcised soap
could be sold at a high profit. In 1650 the authorized soap-boilers
complained^ of the "double excise," which, they said, tempted

men to manufacture in "dark places," thus subjecting the com-
pany to an unfair competition "by reason of the visibihty and fixity
of their houses." Under these circumstances there must have been

a strong pubhc motive for concentrating the industry and super-
vising and the company would offer the obvious means to this
it,
end. Soon after the meeting of the Long Parliament the patents
for soap were referred to the consideration of a committee.^
When the report was read, it appeared that it was only the
defunct Westminster Company that was called in question. The
House of Commons resolved * against the invention of Palmer and
Jones as a deceitful project, against the patents of incorporation
and the indentures and covenants of the company, against the pro-
clamations and decrees in support of that monopoly, against the
Star Chamber and Privy Council proceedings, and against the pro-
jectors of the company and the referees, declaring that they should
make reparation to the London soap-boilers and to the Common-
wealth. The proceedings against the members of the Westminster
Company dragged through many years, but the ordinance finally
prepared against them was lost by committing.^
The London Company fared well in the courts. When the legis-
lature failed to revoke the charter arbitrarily, the independent
soap-boilers appealed to the law, invoking the Statute of Mono-
pohes against the London Company, which " to their utter ruin "
broke their houses, seized their materials and vessels, imprisoned
them, and drove them into exile. But the company had a long
purse and fought the case for fifteen years, and finally won it.
The company resorted to all sorts of expedients to delay judgment,
' Husband, Orders and Ordinances, 1642-46, London, 1646,9. 315.

^ Lilburne et al., The Soapmakers' Complaint for the Loss of their Trade, 1650.
(" Proposals for a more juster, eqnaller, and righteous way " of raising Revenue.)
King's Pamphlets, British Museum.
' C. J. December 21, 1640.
' C. J. August 17, 1641, October 30, 1641.
' C. J. December 14, 1647, May 29, 1651.
27
apparently fearing the result. Special verdicts, long pleas,* writs
of error, appeals, and injunctions were employed, and the Long
Pariiament itself was induced to lend its authority, through com-
missioners of inquiry, to delay proceedings.^ Finally, the case
was decided in the Court of Exchequer in 1656. The report re-
cites that the king, by patent, May 22, 1637, for preventing and
reforming abuses in the trade of soap-making, and for the better
government of that trade, constituted a society or body corporate
of soap-makers to continue forever with power to search, and
with exclusive right of apprenticing, paying ^^43,000 for the charter
besides an impost upon soap. The question was "whether this
was a good charter of incorporation or a monopoly within the
statute of 21 Jac. I, c. 3." The judge's decision was as follows:
"I know very well that common and vulgar judgments run high
against all such patents and condemn them before they under-
stand them, as being contrary to the liberty of the subject and the
freedom of trade; but they that consider them better are not so
hasty in their censures; for certainly upon a serious consideration,
all such patents and by-laws as tend most to the weU regulating
and ordering and the better management of them, so
of trades
that the benefits ofthem may be derived to the greater part of the
people, though with a prejudice to some particular persons, have
always been allowed by the law, but patents which tend to the
engrossing of trade, merchandise, and manufacture, though never
so small value, into one or a few hands only, have always been held
unreasonable and unwarrantable." "Wherefore he concluded
. . .
that the grant was good." ' A further appeal was attempted, but
was stopped by order of ParUament in the next year.*
The continuance of this monopoly shows that some even of the
most questionable privileges might thrive as well under the Com-
monwealth as under the monarchy. This period was not a specu-
lative one, so that there were few projects ventilated, and fewer
patents issued. And though administration under the Common-
• There was, for example, one of 336 folios.
2 S. P. D. [August 23], 1653.
' John Hayes et al. London Company of Soap-makers) v. Edward Harding
et al., by English Bill, pp. 53-56, in Hardres's Reports of Cases adjudged in the
Court of Exchequer in the Years 1655-1660, London, 1693.
* C. J. June 26, 1657.
wealth was not free from corruption, those highest in authority
were honest and capable, as had not always been the case during
the two preceding reigns. But while the abusive and scandalous
monopolies were suppressed, some few others, for reasons of state
policy or finance, were allowed to stand. Moreover, although the
parliamentary leaders had sounder economic ideas than had the
crown ministers, they still retained an attachment for many of
the traditional restrictions upon industry.
CHAPTER XII
CONCLUSION
The period from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the
seventeenth century was a time when social forces at home com-
bined with the protestant diaspora abroad to produce a diversi-
fication and increase in mechanical pursuits unprecedented in
England. There was great eagerness to renew old resources and
to exploit new ones. The "projecting" spirit gave birth to some
monstrous and artificial schemes, it is true, but the spirit itself
was in consonance with the economic conditions. Capital was ac-

cumulating and seeking new avenues of investment, contributing,
with the influx of capital from abroad, to reduce the rate of interest.
The skilled labor of the protestant refugees, invited by the hospitable

English government, was migrating from the regions of the then
highest attainments in the arts. But this hundred years of economic
transition did not bring to completion the national organization of
trade and industry. Local interests were offering a vigorous resist-
ance to the spread of the national economy, and the apparent uncer-
tainty of the struggle enhances the interest of the period. Industrial
progress was breaking down the old institutions; the arrangements
which were supplanting them were as yet imperfectly organized and
adjusted to their function.
At such a time much deperided upon the good judgment of those
in authority. Government alone could give security to property, and
free scope for private initiative. Security, the administration cer-
tainly gave to the fuU measure of its inadequate resources. Govern-

ment, indeed, undertook too much rather than too little. The
effort was made under royal patronage, a group of
to build up,
industries for which England was as yet unprepared. The drift

toward diversified manufactures, and the atmosphere of speculation
which the rapid accumulations of the middle classes had inspired,
led to ambitions that were premature; and these ambitions the
government supported. But while security for national economic
progress was safeguarded, independent enterprise was discour-
aged by a reactionary policy, which entrusted to monopolists the
fate of numerous new industries. The grant. of monopoly some-

times included a prohibition of importation; in other cases, foreign
products were subsequently excluded. Something might have
been hoped for an industr}' which enjoyed the exclusive right of
competing with imported wares, and more might have been hoped
in some instances, perhaps, from competing domestic producers
who were protected from foreign competition. But to invest a
single concern with complete protection both as against foreign
and as against domestic competition was altogether too hkely to
result in stagnation. Under such conditions the removal of all
stimulus of competition was almost certain to tempt the single
producer to incur no risk in the attempt to create new demands,
or in the introduction of radical improvements in production. The
protective measures, instead of being used as stepping-stones to
progress and expansion, were treated as substitutes for enterprise
and initiative. The market provided by the government's poUcy
was sufficient to content the favored producers. When, ultimately,
the protected industries had to face the competition of rivals at
home and abroad, they lacked perseverance, vigilance, and aggress-

iveness, and languished in consequence.
Since the movement toward a wider economic freedom was
steadily though only slowly predominating, the reactionary mono-
poly poUcy could not command public sympathy. And because
the system was unpopular, its supervision was necessarily unsatis-
factory. The law courts could not be resorted to, for they reflected
the growing feehng against restraint. Hence the patentees sought
their remedies before the Privy Council, where the bias was in
their favor. The undisturbed enjoyment of privileges therefore
depended upon the executive resources of an organ of government
whose authority, though theoretically supreme, was in practice
limited by an imperfect control over its agents. The Council had
no large bodies of deputies under its immediate appointment and
direction, and its ultimate reUance was upon the local justices and
burgesses, who were generally swayed more by regard for local good
will than by subservience to the central power. The result was
that it was impossible adequately to support the grants of privilege.
CONCLUSION 131
While directly the monopoly policy culminated in failure, there

were some indirect consequences which were distinct gains. Not
the least of these was the development of a system of patents for
the effective encouragement of invention. This, the original in-
tention of the policy, had become obscured by the excrescences
of the system, but the idea had never been abandoned. Even the
limited experience in granting patents of this sort had inculcated
caution, and gradually provided a body of precedents and the
needed administrative machinery, the lack of which had been at
first so fatal.
Of hardly less importance was the experience of the monopohes
in the accumulation and management of capital. The industrial
no less than the commercial monopohes played a leading part in
the expansion of business organization and methods. The foreign
trading monopohes are usually supposed to have furnished the first
field of joint- stock enterprise in England. Yet the mining companies

were organized on the basis of a single joint stock more than thirty
years before the first "voyage" of the East India Company, and
nearly a century before that company gave up its principle of sepa-
rate joint stocks. The investment of capital in return for shares
in a common concern played a part in nearly every important
internal monopoly. This was in fact a necessity for the large-scale
enterprises that were being projected. When a single industrial

concern undertook to supply all the demands of the kingdom for
a certain commodity, the resources of a single man were usually in-
adequate to furnish the capital required, and hence the monopoUes
offered convenient and suitable opportunities for the investment
of small sums. The temporary effect was not always advantage-
ous to the community, since occasion was given to rogues and
visionaries to dissipate in considerable amounts the savings of the
ineirperienced. Through the monopohes, however, were learned
in the long run many costly but useful lessons in the management
and control of corporate organizations.
Not the least of the gains from the monopoly struggle was that
the people became accustomed to excise taxation. A system of
indirect internal taxation, in its inception, is pecuharly unpopular.
Its inauguration usually requires a serious fiscal emergency, and
a firm or stubborn government. The reign of Charles I suppUed
both. The monopoly projects of that sovereign opened a rich
source of revenue, and, vsîth the scandal of private profit removed
and another name substituted for that of monopoly, the govern-
ment of the Commonwealth was able to introduce a form of tax-
ation for which the nation was at least partially prepared. Popular
opinion had been right in regarding unparliamentary taxation as
an evil, but the political grievance was adjusted when Parliament
authorized the excise.
Furthermore, while the immediate effect of the monopoly policy
had been to foster corruption and exploitation of the community
for private advantage, the final outcome of the struggle taught the
crown the necessity of finding other forms of bounty for favorites;
and the same influence helped Parliament to see the expediency
of establishing a civil list. Such economic advantages as were
thus unconsciously obtained were gains for the future at contem-
porary expense. Temporarily, little good resulted; ultimately, the
gain was by no means trivial.
The same contrast between immediate loss and final gain may
be observed on the political and legal side of the struggle. Although
for a time the efforts to curb thecrown in its encroachments upon
seemed to have been in vain, the permanent outcome
private liberties
was the triumph of freedom. The legal struggle proved that
the common law was opposed to "restraint" of trade. A longer
struggle ended in the statutory confirmation of the common law.
And when the crown ignored both courts and parUaments, an
appeal was made to arms by which it was demonstrated that revo-
lution was more than a theoretical remedy when law and statute
were violated. To say that the temporary effects of the monopolies
were evil, and that the lessons taught by their evils were good, is
not to strike a balance in their favor. It argues rather the capacity
of Englishmen for remembering their lessons.
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
Statute of Monopolies. (21 Jac. I, cap. 3. a. d. 1623-24.) An

act concerning Monopolies and dispensations with penal laws and
the forfeitures thereof.
Forasmuch as your most excellent Majesty, in your royal judgment

and of your blessed disposition to the weal and quiet of your sub-
jects, did, in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred
and ten, publish in print to the whole realm and to all posterity,
that all grants of monopoUes and of the benefit of any penal laws,
or of power to dispense with the law, or to compound for the for-
feiture, are contrary to your Majesty's laws, which your Majesty's
declaration is truly consonant and agreeable to the ancient and
fundamental laws of this your realm; and whereas your Majesty
was further graciously pleased expressly to command that no suitor
should presume to move your Majesty for matters of that nature:
yet nevertheless upon misinformations and untrue pretenses of
public good, many such grants have been unduly obtained and
unlawfully put in execution, to the great grievance and inconven-
ience of your Majesty's subjects, contrary to the laws of this your
realm, and contrary to your Majesty's royal and blessed intention
so published as aforesaid; For avoiding whereof and preventing
of all the like in time to come: May it please your Majesty at the
humble suit of the Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons
in this present Parliament, that all monopolies and all commis-
sions, grants, hcenses, charters, and letters patents heretofore made
or granted, or heretofore to be made or granted to any person or
persons, bodies politic or corporate whatsoever, of or for the sole
buying, selhng, making, working, or using of anything within this
realm or the dominion of Wales, or of any other monopoUes or of
power, hberty, or faculty to dispense with any others, or to give
license or toleration to do, use, or exercise anything against the tenor
1 36 APPENDICES
or purport of any law or statute, or to give or make any warrant
for any such dispensation, license, or toleration to be had or made,
or to agree or compound with any others for any penalty or forfeit-
ures limited by any statute, or of any grant or promise of the bene-
fit, profit, or commodity of any forfeiture, penalty, or sum of money
that is or shall be due by any statute before judgment thereupon
had, and all proclamations, inhibitions, restraints, warrants of as-
sistance, and all other matters and things whatsoever any way tend-
ing to the instituting, erecting, strengthening, furthering, or coun-
tenancing of the same or any of them, are altogether contrary to
the laws of this realm, and so are and shall be utterly void and of
none effect, and in no wise to be put in use or execution.
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
aforesaid that all monopolies and all such commissions, grants,
licenses, charters, letters patents, proclamations, inhibitions, re-
straints, warrants of assistance, and all other matters and things

tending as aforesaid, and the force and validity of them and every
of them ought to be, and shall be forever hereafter examined, heard,
tried, and determined by and according to the common law of this
realm and not otherwise.
III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that
all person and persons, bodies poUtic and corporate whatsoever,
which now are or hereafter shall be, shall stand and be disabled
and incapable to have, use, exercise, or put in use any monopoly
or any such commission, grant, license, charters, letters patents,
proclamations, inhibition, restraint, warrant of assistance, or other
matter or thing tending as aforesaid or any liberty, power, or fac-
ulty grounded or pretended to be grounded upon them or any of
them.
IV. And be it by the authority aforesaid that
further enacted
if any person or persons at any time after the end of forty days next
after the end of this present session of Parhament shall be hindered,

grieved, disturbed, or disquieted, or his or their goods or chattels
any way seized, attached, distrained, taken, carried away, or de-
tained by occasion or pretext of any monopoly, or of any such
commission, grant, hcense, power, Uberty, faculty, letters patents,
proclamations, inhibition, restraint, warrant of assistance, or other
matter or thing tending as aforesaid, and will sue to be relieved in
APPENDICES 137
or for any of the premises, that then and in every such case the
same person and persons shall and may have his and their remedy
for the same at the common law, by any action or actions to be
grounded upon this statute, the same action and actions to be heard
and determined in the courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas,
and Exchequer, or in any of them, against him or them by whom
he or they be so hindered, grieved, disturbed, or disquieted,
shall
or against him or them by whom his or their goods or chattels shall
be so seized, attached, distrained, taken, carried away, or detained,
wherein all and every such person and persons which shall be so
hindered, grieved, disturbed, or disquieted, or whose goods or chat-
tels shall be so seized, attached, distrained, taken, or carried away
or detained, shall recover three times so much as the damages
which he or they sustained by means or occasion of being so hin-
dered, grieved, disturbed, or disquieted, or by means of having his
or their goods or chattels seized, attached, distrained, taken, carried
away, or detained, and double costs ; and in such suits, or for the
staying or delaying thereof, no essoine, protection, wager, or law,
aydeprayer, privilege, injunction, or order of restraint shall be in any
wise prayed, granted, admitted, or allowed, nor any more than one
imparlance: and any person or persons shall, after notice given
if
that the action depending is grounded upon this statute, cause or
procure any action at the common law grounded upon this statute
to be stayed or delayed before judgment, by color or means of any
order, warrant, power, or authority, save only of the court wherein
such action as aforesaid shall be brought and depending, or after
judgment had upon such action, shall cause or procure the execu-
tion of or upon any such judgment to be stayed or delayed by color
or means of any order, warrant, power, or authority, save only by
writ of error or attaint, that then the said person and persons so
offending shall incur and sustain the pains, penalties, and forfeit-
ures ordained and provided by the statute of Provision and Pre-

munire made in the sixteenth year of the reign of King Richard the
Second.
V. Provided nevertheless, and be it declared and enacted that
any declaration before mentioned shall not extend to any letters
patents, and grants of privilege, for the term of one and twenty
years or under, heretofore made of the sole working or making of
138 APPENDICES
any manner of new manufacture within this reahn, to the first and
true inventor or inventors of such manufactures which others at
the time of making of such letters patents and grants did not use,
so they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the state, by
raising of the prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or
generally inconvenient, but that the same shall be of such force as
they were or should be if this act had not been made, and of none
other: and if the same were made for more than one and twenty
years, that then the same for the term of one and twenty years only,
to be accounted from the date of the first letters patents and grants
thereof made, shall be of such force as they were or should have
been if the same had been made but for the term of one and twenty
years only, and as if this act had never been had or made, and of
none other.
VI. Provided also, and be it declared and enacted that any de-
claration before mentioned shall not extend to any letters patents
and grants of privileges for the term of fourteen years or under,

hereafter to be made of the sole working or making of any manner
of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first inven-
tor and inventors of such manufactures which others at the time
of making such letters patents and grants shall not use, so as also
they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the state, by
raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or gener-
ally inconvenient, the said fourteen years to be accounted from the
date of the first letters patents or grant of such privilege hereafter
to be made, but that the same shall be of such force as they should
be if this act had never been made and of none other.
VII. Provided also, and it is hereby further intended, declared,

and enacted by the authority aforesaid that this act or anything
therein contained shall not in any wise extend or be prejudicial to
any grant or privilege, power, or authority whatsoever heretofore
made, granted, allowed, or confirmed by any act of Pariiament now
in force, so long as the same shall so continue in force.
VIII. Provided also, that this act shall not extend to any warrant
or privy seal made or directed, or to be made or directed by his
Majesty, his heirs, or successors, to the justices of the courts of the
King's Bench or Common Pleas, and barons of the Exchequer,
justices of assize,, justices of oyer and terminer, and gaol dehvery;
APPENDICES 139
justices of the peace and other justices for the time being, having
power to hear and determine offenses done against any penal stat-
ute, to compound for the forfeitures of any penal statute depend-
ing in suit and question before them or any of them respectively,
after plea pleaded by the party defendant.
IX. Provided also, and it is hereby further intended, declared,
and enacted that this act or anything therein contained shall not
in any wise extend or be prejudicial unto the city of London, or to
any city, borough, or town corporate within this realm, for or con-
cerning any grants, charters, or letters patents to them or any of them
made or granted, or for or concerning any custom or customs used
by or within them or any of them or unto any corporations, com-
panies, or fellowships of any art, trade, occupation, or mistery, or to
any companies or societies of merchants within this realm, erected for
the niaintenance, enlargement, or ordering of any trade of merchan-
dise, but that the same charters, customs, corporations, companies,
fellowships, and societies, and their hberties, privileges, powers, and

immunities, shall be and continue of such force and effect as they
were before the making of this act, and of none other: anything
before in this act contained to the contrary in any wise notwith-
standing.
X. Provided also, and be it enacted that this act or any declara-
tion, provision, disablement, penalty, forfeiture, or other thing be-
fore mentioned shall not extend to any letters patents or grants of
privilege heretofore made or hereafter to be made of, for, or con-
cerning printing: nor to any commission, grant, or letters patents
heretofore made or hereafter to be made of, for, or concerning the
digging, making, or compounding of gunpowder; or the
saltpeter or
casting or making of ordnance or shot for ordnance; nor to any

grant of letters patents heretofore made, or hereafter to be made
of any office or offices heretofore erected, made, or ordained, and
now in being and put in execution, other than such offices as have
been decreed by any his Majesty's proclamation or proclamations:
but that and every the same grants, commissions, and letters
all
patents and all other matters and things tending to the maintain-
ing, strengthening, or furtherance of the same or any of them, shall
be and remain of the like force and effect, and no other, and as
free from the declarations, provisions, penalties, and forfeitures
14° APPENDICES
contained in this act, as if this act had never been had nor made,
and not otherwise.
XI. Provided also, and be it enacted that this act or any declara-
tion, provision, disablement, penalty, forfeiture, or other thing be-
fore mentioned, shall not extend to any commission, grant, letters

patents, or privileges, heretofore made
or hereafter to be made of,
for, or concerning the digging, compounding, or making of alum or
alum-mines, but that all and every the same commissions, grants, let-
ters patents, and privileges shall be and remain of the hke force
and effect, and no other, and as free from the declarations, pro-
visions, penalties, and forfeitures contained in this act, as if this
act had never been had nor made, and not otherwise.
XII. Provided also, and be it enacted that this act or any de-
claration, provision, penalty, forfeiture, or other thing before men-
tioned, shall not extend or be prejudicial to any use, custom, pre-
scription, franchise, freedom, jurisdiction, immunity, liberty, or
privilege heretofore claimed, used, or enjoyed by the governors

and stewards and brethren of the fellowship of the Hostmen of the
town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, or by the ancient fellowship, guild,
or fraternity commonly called Hostmen; for or concerning the
selHng, carrying, lading, disposing, shipping, venting, or trading
of or for any sea-coals, stone-coals or pit-coals forth or out of the
haven and river of Tyne: or to a grant made by the said governors
and stewards and brethren of the fellowship of the said hostmen
to the late Queen Elizabeth, of any duty or sum of money to be
paid for or in respect of any such coals as aforesaid; nor to any
grants, letters patents, or commissions heretofore granted or here-
after to be granted of, for, or concerning the licensing of the keep-
ing of any tavern or taverns, or seUing, uttering, or retailing of wines
to be drunk or spent in the mansion house or houses, or other place,
in the tenure or occupation of the party or parties so selling or
uttering the same; or for or concerning the making of any com-
positions for such Ucenses, so as the benefit of such compositions
be reserved and applied to and for the use of his Majesty, his heirs,
or successors, and not to the private use of any other person or
persons.
XIII. Provided also, and be it enacted that this act or any de-
claration, provision, penalty, forfeiture, or other thing before men-
APPENDICES 141
tioned shall not extend or be prejudicial to any grant or privilege

for or concerning the making of glass by his Majesty's letters pa-
tents under the great seal of England, bearing date of the two and
twentieth day of May in the one and twentieth year of his Majesty's
reign of England, made and granted to Sir Robert Mansell, Knight,
vice-admiral of England; nor to a grant or letters patents bear-
ing date the twelfth day of June in the thirteenth of his Majesty's
reign of England, made to James MaxweU, Esquire, concerning
the transportation of calf-skins, but that the said several letters
patents last mentioned shall be and remain of the like force and
effect, and as free from the declarations, provisions, penalties, and
forfeitures before mentioned as if this act had never been had nor
made, and not otherwise.
XIV. Provided also, and be it declared and enacted that this
act or any declaration, provision, penalty, forfeiture, or other thing
before mentioned shall not extend or be prejudicial to a grant or
privilege for or concerning the making of smalt by his Majesty's
letters patents under the great seal of England bearing date the
sixteenth day of February in the sixteenth year of his Majesty's

reign of England, made or granted to Abraham Baker; nor to a
grant of privilege for or concerning the melting of iron ore and of
making the same into cast works or bars with sea-coals or pit-coals
by his Majesty's letters patents under the great seal of England
bearing date the twentieth day of February in the nineteenth year
of his Majesty's reign of England, made or granted to Edward
Lord Dudley, but that the same several letters patents and grants
shall be made and remain of the Uke force and effect and as free
from the declarations, provisions, penalties, and forfeitures before
mentioned as if this act had never been had nor made, and not
otherwise.
B
ITEMS FROM "NOTES OF QUEEN ELIZABETH'S REIGN BY THE LORD
TREASURER BURGHLEY "
(Murdin's Cecil or Burghley Papers, pp. 747 ff.)
Dec. ist, 1565. The Queen's Majesty granted a license to the Duke
of Norfolk for carrying of wool out of Norfolk.
August, 1585. A privilege granted to Thomas Wilkes, clerk of the
Council, to bring in white salt within the ports of Lynn and Bos-
ton.
January, 1586. The grant to Sir Thomas Wilkes renewed, with in-
cluding of Hull, with proviso, that if he shall not make sufficient
provision thereof, it shall be lawful for any other to bring in salt.
April, 1587. A privilege granted to Richard Young of London,

for making starch only upon bran of wheat, paying ;£40 yearly.
Nov. 17th, 1588. A license to Bevis Bulmer for twelve years for
the use of an instrument for cutting of iron into small rods.
December, 1588. A Ucense to WilUam Stubbes for transporting
out of Ireland one thousand packs of Hnen yarn.
January, 1589. A Ucense to John Spillman to buy linen rags for
making of white paper.
May, 1589. A Hcense to Lord Hunsdon to transport 20,000 broad-
cloths for the space of six years, paying the custom after six
months shipping.
September, 1589. A license to Thomas Proctor and William Peter-
son to make iron and lead, with sea-coal and turf.
September, 1589. A prohibition for the execution of the exempli-
fication of her Majesty's grant of the penalty for sowing flax and
hemp.
June, 1590. A grant to William Carre to give license to any
Enghshman to brew, and sell any beer in the city of London,
Westminster, or in Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Sussex, and
Surrey to be transported beyond the seas.
APPENDICES 143
Oct. ist, 1591. A privilege granted to Reynold Hopton for the
making of flasks, powder-boxes, and bullet-boxes during fifteen
years.
A grant to Anthony Martin to give hcense to merchants to
transport tin.
January, 1592. A Bowes for twelve years after

grant to Jerome
the term of James Verselini for making glass.
April, 1592. A privilege to Simon Farmer and John Craford of
carrying out of hst and shreds of cloth paying 40s. per annum.
May, 1592. The office to write protections to collect alms for poor
people granted to Mark Stuard and Simon Stuard for term of
their lives.
May, 1592. A privilege granted to John Norden to imprint a book
called Specular.
July, 1592. A warrant to the lord treasurer and chancellor of the
Exchequer to grant license for carriage out of beer and corn,
reserving for every tun of beer and for every quarter of wheat
above the ordinary custom, as they two shall think reasonable.
October, 1592.A grant to H. Neville, Esq., Rudolph Inglested, and
Giles Vischer, to transport, during 20 years, wy[ ] and
faucons of cast iron, with a proviso for the queen to revoke the
same at any time within six months.
November, 1592. A grant to Thomas Knevett of f^20oo in con-
sideration of his former grant of transportation of com and beer,
and otherwise for his service.
December, 1592. A grant to Dr. Lopaz for bringing in anise-seed
and sumach.
May, 1593. A gift of her Majesty of ;£8oo to Sir John Pakington
without account.
July, 1593. A license to H. Noell for fifteen years for the only bring-
ing in of stone pots and bottles and heath brush.
August, 1593. A privilege granted to Bryan Annesley for bring-
ing in steel after the determination of a grant made to Rob.
Beale.
March, 1594. A grant to Edw. Darcy of the Privy Chamber for
searching and seahng all kinds of buffs.
March, 1594. A privilege granted to Ric. Drake of the Stables
to brew beer and ale for making aqua vitae and beer vineggj.
144 APPENDICES
April, 1594. A privilege granted to Robert Alexander and Richard
Monpeson to bring in anise-seed and sumach into the realm.
May, 1594. A grant made to the master, &c., of the Trinity House
of Deptford of the lastage and ballastage of ships in the river of
Thames.
July ist, 1594. A privilege granted to Sir John Pakington for starch,
yielding to her Majesty, yearly £15, with prohibition to make
none but of the bran of wheat.
September, 1594. A privilege to Michael Stanhope, groom of the
Privy Chamber, for the bringing in of Spanish wool upon D.
Ector's grant determined.
September, 1594. A grant to Henry Bellingham for surveying of
all cordage, with proviso of revocation.
March, 1596. A joint patentship to Thomas Windebank and

Thomas Lake for writing letters patents.
November, 1596. A grant to Wilham Carre, Esq., for brewing and
selling beer for the space of seven years within the cities of Lon-
don and Westminster, and the counties of SufiEolk, Essex, Kent,
Middlesex, Surrey, and Sussex.
A NOTE OF MONOPOLIES, 1603
(Lodge: Illustrations of British History, 1791, vol. iii, pp. 159 ff. Reproduced from
Talbot Papers, vol. K, fol. 79, endorsed by the Earl of Shrewsbury.)
Monopolies
33 A grant to Reynold Hopton only, and no other, to

make flasks, touch-boxes, powder-boxes, and bullet-
boxes, for 15 years.
A grant to Simon Farmer and John Craford only,
and no other, to transport list and shreds of woollen
cloth, and all manner of horns, for 21 years.
A grant to Bryan Annesley, solely, and no other,
to buy and provide steel beyond sea and sell the same
within this realm for 21 years.
A grant to Robert Alexander only, and no other,
to buy and bring in anise-seeds, sumach, &c., for 21
years.
A grant to John Spillman only, and no other, to buy
linen rags, and to make paper.
A grant to Ede Schetts,and his assignees only, and
no other, to buy and transport ashes and old shoes
for seven years.
36 Eliz. A grant to [ ] only, and no other, to pro-

vide and bring in all Spanish wools for making of
felt hats, for 20 years.
34 Eliz. A grant that Sir Jerome Bowes, and no other, shall

make glasses for 12 years.
42 Eliz. A grant made to Harding and others only, concern-
ing saltpeter.
41 Eliz. A grant that Brigham and Wimmes shall only have
the pre-emption of tin.
146 A PPENDICES
Other Monopolies for one Man only and no other
To register all writings and assurances between merchants, called

policies.
To make spangles.
To print the Psalms 0} David.
To print Cornelius Tacitus.
To sow woad in certain numbers of shires.
To print grammars, primers, and other school-books.
To print the law.
To print all manner of songs in parts.
To make mathematical instruments.
To plainish and hollow silver vessels.
That one man and no other shall make writs of subpoena in Chan-
cery. Sir Thomas George.
To write all writs of supplication and supersedeas for the peace
and good behaviour, and all pardons of outlawry, George
Carew.
To draw leases in possession made by the king. Sir Edward Staf-
ford.
To engross all leases by the great seal.
Licenses and Dispensations to one Man only, of the whole Penalty

of Penal Laws, and Power given to license others
[18] Eliz. A license to Sir Edward Dyer, to pardon and dispense

with tanning of leather, contrary to the statute of
5 Ehz., and to license any man to be a tanner.
30 Eliz. A patent to Sir Walter Raleigh, to make licenses for
keeping of taverns and retailing of wines throughout
England.
31 Eliz. The grant to John Ashley and Thomas Windebank,
to have all forfeitures and penalties for burning of
timber trees to make iron, contrary to the statute of
I Eliz.
36 Eliz. A license to Roger Bineon, and others, to take the

whole forfeiture of the statute of 5th and 6th of
Edw. VI, for pulling down gig-mills.
37 Eliz. A license to William Smith only, and no other, to take

APPENDICES 147
the benefit of the statute of 5 Eliz. for gashing of
hides, and barking of trees.
38 Eliz. A Ucense to Thomas Cornwallis only, and no other,

to make grants and licenses for keeping of gaming-
houses, and using of unlawful games, contrary to the
statute of 33 Henry VIII.
39 Eliz. A license to WiUiam Carre, for nine years, to authorize

and Ucense any person to brew beer to be transported
beyond sea.
40 Eliz. A Richard Coningsby, to give license for
license to
buying of throughout England.
tin
41 EUz. A hcense to Richard Carnithen only, to bring in Irish

yarn for seven years.
Impositions
41 Ehz. A grant to Bevis Bulmer to have an imposition of

sea-coal, paying ;£62cio rent for 21 years.
36 Eliz. A grant madeJohn Parker, Esq., to have twelve-

to
pence for every bill in Chancery in respect
filing of
whereof the subject is to be discharged of payment

of anything of search.
41 Eliz. A hcense to trade the Levant seas with currants only,
paying £4000 per annum.
Particular Ucenses to transport certain numbers of
pelts of sheep-skins and lamb-skins.
Certain numbers of woollen cloths.
Certain numbers of dickers of calf-skins.
New Inventions
Only and no other, so as they were never used in England before

To inn and drain [ grounds.
]
To take water fowl.
To make devices of safe-keeping of corn.

To make a device for soldiers to carry necessary provisions.
D
ROBERT CECIL'S LIST OF MONOPOLIES, 160I
(Townshend, pp. 244-45.)
Mr. Secretary Cecil read a paper of three or four sheets openly of

all the patents granted since 16 Reginae, and first he read in the
17th of the queen
A patent to Robert Sparke, to make spangles, and owes of gold.
1 8th Reginae
A patent to Sir Edward Dyer, to pardon, dispense, and release

all forfeitures and abuses committed by tanners, contrary to
the statute.
19 Reginae
A Wade, Esquire, et al., for the making of sul-
patent to William
phur, brimstone, and oil.
A patent to James Chambers, to give license for tanning, con-
trary to the statute.
30 Reginae
A patent to Sir Walter Raleigh, of tunnage and poundage of wines.
To John Ashley et al., a patent for benefit of forfeiture of buying
of S .
To WilUam Watkins et al., a patent to print almanacs.

A patent to [
to print David's Psalms.
],
A patent to one Kirke et al., to take the benefit of sowing flax and
hemp.
A patent to Richard Welsh, to print the History 0} Cornelius
Tacitus.
A patent to [ ], to transport iron and tin.
A patent to John Norden, to print Speculum Britanniae.

A patent to [ ], to print the Psalms of David, according
to
the Hebrew text.
A patent to certain merchants, to traffic.
A patent to Sir Jerome Bowes, to make glasses.
A .patent to [ ], to provide and transport lists and shreds.

A PPENDICES 1 49
35 Reginae
A patent to Henry Noell to make stone pots, &c.
A license to William Arber, to sow six hundred acres of ground
with woad.
A patent to Mr. Hale, to provide steel beyond the seas.
A patent to [ ], to have one shilling upon every hogshead
of pilchards.
A patent to [ to have the benefit of forfeiture by gig-mills.
],
A patent to Elizabeth Mathews for train oil of blubber.

A patent to Richard Drake, for aqua composita, aqua vitae,
vinegar, and alegar.
A patent to Robert Alexander, for anise-seeds.
A patent to Edward Darcy, for steel.
A patent to Michael Stanhope, for Spanish wools.
A patent to Valentine Harris, to sow six hundred acres of ground
with woad.
A patent to [ ], to take benefit of the statute for gashing of
hides, &c.
A patent to Mr. Cornwallis, for unlawful games.
A patent to Henry Singer, touching printing of school-books.
A license to Arthur Bassaney, to transport six thousand calf- skins.
A patent to Edward Darcy, to provide, bring, make, and utter
cards.
A patent to Thomas Morley, to print songs in parts.
A patent to Sir John Pakington, for starch and ashes.
A patent to [
to make mathematical instruments.
],
A patent to [
to make saltpeter.
],
A patent to Thomas Wight and Bonham Norton, to print the law-

books.
A patent to [ ], for livers of fishes.
A patent to [ ], for polldavis, for fishing.
LISTS OF PATENTS GRANTED BETWEEN THE PARLIAMENTS OF
1597 AND 1601
(To
ANOTHER LIST, 160I
1. To Sir Henry Neville, the patent for ordnance.

2. To Simon Farmer, the patent for Usts, shreds, and horns to be
transported.
3. To Henry Noell, the patent for stone pots and bottles.*
4. To Bryan Annesley, the patent for steel.
5. To EUzabeth Matthews, the patent of oil of blubber.
6. To Richard Drake, the patent for aqua composita and aqua
vitae.
7. To Michael Stanhope, the patent for Spanish wools.

8. To Thomas Comwallis, a license to keep unlawful games.
9. To Mr. Carre, a patent for brewing of beer to be transported.
10. To John Spillman, a patent to make paper.
11. To Edward Darcy, a patent for cards.
12. To Mr. John Pakington, a patent for starch.
13. To Sir Walter Raleigh, a patent for wines.
*The patent for bottles was lately made void by judgment in

the Exchequer.
NOTE OR CATALOGUE SHOWED, ONLY ALTERED IN SOME PLACES
FOR order's SAKE." 160I
(D'Ewes, p. 650.)
To Sir Henry Neville the patent for ordnance.

To Sir Jerome Bowes the patent for glasses.
To Simon Farmer the patent for hsts, shreds, and horns to be
transported.
To Sir Henry Noell the patent for stone pots and bottles.
To Bryan Annesley the patent for steel.
To Elizabeth Matthews the patent for oil of blubber.
To Richard Drake a patent for aqua composita and aqua vitae.
To Michael Stanhope a patent for Spanish wools.
To Thomas Comwallis the license to keep unlawful games.
To William Carre a patent for brewing of beer to be transported.
To John Spillman a license to make paper.
To Edward Darcy a patent for cards.
To Sir John Pakington the patent for starch.
To Sir Walter Raleigh the patent for tin.
To William Wade, Esq. the making of sulphur, brimstone, and oil.
To James Chambers a license for tanning.
To William Watkins and James Roberts a license to print almanacs.
To Richard Welsh to print the History oj Cornelius and [sic]
Tacitus.
To John Norden to print Speculum Britanniae.
To certain merchants to traffic.
To William Allin to sow six hundred acres of ground with woad.
To Mr. Hale to provide steel beyond the seas.
To Mr. Robert Alexander for anise-seeds.
To Edward Darcy a patent for steel.
To Valentine Harris to sow six hundred acres with woad.
To Sir Henry Singer touching the printing of school-books.
To Arthur Bassaney a license to transport six thousand calf-skins.
APPENDICES 153
To Thomas Morley to print songs in three parts.

To Sir John Pakington for starch and ashes.
To Thomas Wight & Bonham Norton to print law-books.
And divers others of no great moment touching the transporta-
tion of iron and tin, the sowing of hemp and flax, the gashing
of hides, the forfeiture of gig-mills, the making of mathe-
matical instruments, the making of saltpeter, the printing
of the Psalms 0} David, and touching fishers, pouldavies,
and certain forfeitures.

H
bacon's speech, NOVEMBER 20, 160I
For the prerogative royal of the prince: For my part, I ever

allowed ofit and it is such as I hope I shall never see discussed.
;
The queen, as she is our sovereign, hath both an enlarging and

restraining liberty of her prerogative; that is, she hath power by
her patents, to set at Hberty things restrained by statute-law
or otherwise: And by her prerogative, she may restrain things that
are at hberty.
For the first: She may grant non obstanies, contrary to the
penal laws; which truly, in my own conscience, are as hateful to
the subject as monopolies. For the second: If any man out of
his own wit, industry, or endeavor, find out anything beneficial
for the commonwealth, or bring any new invention, which every
subject of this realm may use; yet in regard of his pains, travail,
and charge therein, her Majesty is pleased (perhaps) to grant him
a privilege to use the same only by himself, or his deputies, for a
certain time: This is one kind of monopoly. Sometimes there is a
glut of things, when they be in excessive quantities, as of com; and
perhaps, her Majesty gives license to one man of transportation:
This is another kind of monopoly. Sometimes there is a scarcity,
or small quantity; and the like is granted also.
These, and divers of this nature, have been in trial, both in the
Common-Pleas, upon actions of trespass, where if the judges do
find the privilege good for the commonwealth, they will allow it,
otherwise disallow it. And also, I know, that her Majesty herself,
hath given command to her attorney-general, to bring divers of them
(since the last Parliament) to trial in the Exchequer. Since which,
fifteen or sixteen to my knowledge, have been repealed: Some
upon her Majesty's own express command, upon complaint made
unto her by petition; and some by quo warranto, in the Exchequer.
But, Mr. Speaker (said he, pointing to the bill), this is no
APPENDICES 155
Stranger in this place; but a stranger in this vestment. The use
hath been ever, by petition to humble ourselves to her Majesty,
and by petition to desire to have our grievances redressed; espe-
cially, when the remedy toucheth her so nigh in prerogative. All
cannot be done at once; neither was it possible, since the last Par-
liament, to repeal all. If her Majesty makes a patent, or a mono-
poly, to any of her servants; that we must go and cry out against:
But if she grants it to a number of burgesses, or corporation, that
must stand; and that, forsooth, is no monopoly.
I say, and I say again, that we ought not to deal, or meddle with,
or judge of her Majesty's prerogative. I wish every man, therefore,
to be careful in this point. And humbly pray this House to testify
with me, that I have discharged my duty, in respect of my place,
in speaking on her Majesty's behalf; and do protest, I have de-
livered my conscience, in saying what I have said.
:
Elizabeth's proclamation concerning monopolies

november 28, 1601
Brit. Mus. Proc. Coll. (G. 6463-388.)
By the Queen
A proclamation for the reformation of many abuses and misde-
meanors committed by patentees of certain privileges and licenses,
to the general good of all her Majesty's loving subjects.
Whereas her most excellent Majesty having granted divers priv-

ileges and licenses (upon many suggestions unto her Highness,
that the same should tend to the common good and profit of her
subjects), hath since the time of those grants received divers in-
formations of sundry grievances Ughting upon many of the poorer
sort of her people (by force thereof) contrary to her Majesty's ex-
pectation at the time of those grants: All which being duly exam-
ined, by such as her Majesty hath directed to consider and report
the state of such complaints as have been made in that behalf, it
doth appear that some of the said grants were not only made upon
false and untrue suggestions contained in her letters patents, but
have been also notoriously abused, to the great loss and grievance
of her loving subjects (whose public good she tendereth more than
any worldly riches)
And whereas also upon hke false suggestions, there have been
obtained of the lords of her Highness's Privy Council divers letters
of assistance, for the due execution of divers of the said grants,

according to her Highness's gracious intention and meaning.
Forasmuch as her most excellent Majesty (whose care and pro-
vidence never ceaseth to preserve her people in continual peace
and plenty) doth discern that these particular grants ensuing:
namely, of or in any wise concerning salt, salt upon salt, vinegar,
aqua vitae, or aqua composita, or any liquor concerning the same,

salting and packing of fish, train oil, blubbers or livers of fish, pol-
APPENDICES 157
davies and mildemix, pots, brushes, and bottles, and starch, have
been found in consequence so far differing from those main grounds
and reasons which have been mentioned in the grants and have
also in the execution of the said letters patents been extremely
abused, contrary to her Highness's intention, and meaning therein
expressed : She is now pleased of her mere grace and favor to all
her loving subjects, and by her regal power and authority to pub-
Hsh and declare (by virtue hereof) all the said grants above men-
tioned and every clause, article, and sentence (in the letters patents
thereof contained) to be void. And doth further expressly charge
and command all the said patentees, and all and every person and
persons claiming by, from, or under them, or any of them, that
they or any of them do not at any time hereafter presume or at-
tempt to put in use, or execution, anything therein contained, upon

pain of her Highness's indignation, and to be punished as contemn-
ers and breakers of her royal and princely commandment.
And whereas her Majesty hath also granted divers other priv-
ilegesand licenses, some for the better furnishing of the realm with
such warlike provisions as are necessary for the defense thereof,
(as namely that concerning saltpeter), and some of other kinds to
particular persons which have sustained losses and hindrances by
service at sea and land, or such as have been her Majesty's ancient
domestical servitors, or for some other like considerations, as namely,
new drapery, Irish yarn, calf-skins, pelts, cards, glasses, search-
ing and sealing of leather, and steel, and such like : In which grants
also her Highness hath been credibly informed that there hath
been abuse in the execution of them, to the hurt and prejudice of
her loving subjects (whereof she meaneth also that due punish-
ment shall follow upon such as shall be found to have particularly
offended), her Majesty doth by these presents likewise publish,
notify,and declare her gracious will and pleasure to be, that all and
every her Highness's loving subjects, that at any time hereafter
shall find themselves grieved, injured, or wronged by reason of
any of the said grants, or any clause, article, or sentence therein
contained, may be at his or their liberty to take their ordinary remedy
by her Highness's laws of this realm, any matter or thing in any of
the said grants to the contrary notwithstanding.
And forasmuch as her Majesty (with the advice of her Privy
158 A PPENDICES
Council) is now resolved that no letters from henceforth shall be
written from them to assist these grants, seeing they have served
for pretexts to those that have had them, to and oppress her
terrify
people (merely contrary to the purpose and meaning of the same),
her Majesty doth straightly charge and command, that no letters
of assistance that have been granted by her Council for execution
of these grants, shall at any time hereafter be put in execution, or
any of her loving subjects be thereby enforced to do or perform
anything therein contained. And that no pursuivant, messenger
of her Highness's Chamber, or other officer whatsoever do or at
any time hereafter presume or attempt anything against any of her
loving subjects, by pretext or color of any such letters of assist-
ance for execution or putting in use of any of those aforesaid grants,
or anything therein contained.
And as her Majesty doth greatly commend the duty and obe-
dience that her loving subjects have yielded in conforming them-
selves to the said grants, beingunder the great seal of England:
So her Majesty doth notify and signify by these presents that if
any of her subjects shall seditiously or contemptuously presume
to call in question the power or validity of her prerogative royal,
annexed to her imperial crown, in such cases all such persons
so offending shall receive severe punishment, according to their
demerits.
And whereas she hath also been informed that divers of her
subjects are desirous to be set at Uberty for the sowing of woad,
restrained by a proclamation in the fortieth and two year of her
reign, at which time it was thought by many men of good experience
that such restraint would be a mean to prevent sundry inconven-
iences, forasmuch as her Majesty had never other purpose by that
restraint than to do that which might be for the greatest and most
general benefit of her subjects Her Highness is also pleased (and
:
so she doth) by this proclamation set at Uberty all such persons

as shall think it for their employ their grounds to the use
good to
of sowing of woad, notwithstanding any such prohibition in any
former proclamation. Provided always, that it shall not be lawful
for any person or persons whatsoever to convert any ground that
shall be within three miles of the city of London, or near any of her
Majesty's houses of access, or so near to any other great city or town
APPENDICES 159
corporate, whereby any offense may grow from the noisome savor
of the same.
Given at our palace at Westminster the 28th day of November,

in the fortieth and four year of her Majesty's most prosperous
reign.
God, save the Queen.
Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, printer to the queen's

most excellent Majesty.
K
THE "golden speech" OF QUEEN ELIZABETH TO HER LAST PAR-
LIAMENT, NOVEMBER THE 30TH, ANNO DOMINI, 160I
(" From a genuine copy in the collection of the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of
Bangor." Someis, Tracts, i, 244-246.)
Her Majesty being set under state in the Council Chamber at

Whitehall, the speaker, accompanied with privy councilors, besides
knights and burgesses of the lower House to the number of eight-
score, presenting themselves at her Majesty's feet, for that so gra-
ciously and speedily she had heard and yielded to her subjects'
desires, and proclaimed the same in their hearing as foUoweth:
Mr. Speaker:
We perceive your coming is to present thanks unto us. Know
I accept them with no less joy than your loves can have desire to
offer such a present, and do more esteem it than any treasure or
riches; for those we know how to prize, but loyalty, love, and thanks,
I account them invaluable; and though God hath raised me high,
yet this I account the glory of my
crown, that I have reigned with
your loves. do not so much rejoice that God
This makes that I
hath made me to be queen, as to be queen over so thankful a peo-
ple, and to be the means under God to conserve you in safety, and
preserve you from danger, yea to be the instrument to deliver you

from dishonor, from shame, and from infamy, to keep you out of
servitude, and from slavery under our enemies, and cruel tyranny,
and vile oppression intended against us; for the better withstand-
ing whereof, we take very acceptable your intended helps, and
chiefly in that it manifesteth your loves and largeness of hearts to
your sovereign. Of myself, I must say this, I never was any greedy
scraping grasper, nor a strict fast-holding prince, nor yet a waster;
my heart was never set upon any worldly goods, but only for my
subjects' good. What you do bestow on me I will not hoard up,
but receive it to bestow on you again; yea mine own properties
1
A PPENDICES 1 6
I account yours to be expended for your good, and your eyes shall
see the bestowing of for your welfare.
it
Mr. Speaker, I would wish you and the rest to stand up, for I
fear I shall yet troubleyou with longer speech.
Mr. Speaker, You give me thanks, but I am more to thank you,
and charge you to thank them of the Lower House from me; for
had I not received knowledge from you, I might a'fallen into the
lapse of an error, only for want of true information.
Since I was queen, yet did I never put my pen to any grant but
upon pretext and semblance made me, that it was for the good and
avail of my subjects generally, though a private profit to some of
my ancient servants, who have deserved well; but that my grants
shall be made grievances to my people, and oppressions, to be
privileged under color of our patents, our princely dignity shall
not suffer it.
When I heard it, I could give no rest unto my thoughts until I

had reformed it, and those varlets, lewd persons, abusers of my
bounty, shall know I will not suffer it. And, Mr. Speaker, tell the
House for me, I take it exceeding grateful, that the knowledge of
these things are come unto me from them. And tho' amongst them
principal members are such as are not touched in private, and there-
fore need not speak from any feeling of grief, yet we have heard
that other gentlemen also of the House, who
free, have stand as
spoken as freely in it; which gives us to know, that no respects or
interests have moved them other than the minds they bear to suffer
no diminution of our honor and our subjects' love unto us. The
zeal of which affection tending to ease my people, and knit their
hearts unto us, I embrace with a princely care far above all earthly
treasures. I esteem my people's love, more than which I desire not
to merit: and God, that gave me here to sit, and placed me over
you, knows, that I never respected myself, but as your good was
conserved in me; yet what dangers, what practices, and what perils
I have passed, some, if not all of you know; but none of these things
do move me, or ever made me fear, but it 's God that hath deliv-
ered me.
And in my governing this land, I have ever set the last judgment
day before mine eyes, and so to rule as I shall be judged and answer
before a higher Judge, to whose judgment seat I do appeal: in
1 62 APPENDICES
that never thought was cherished in my heart that tended not to
my people's good.
And if my princely bounty have been abused, and my grants
turned to the hurt of my people contrary to my will and meaning,
or if me have neglected, or converted what
any in authority under
I have committed unto them, I hope God will not lay their culps
to my charge.
To be a king, and wear a crown, is a thing more glorious to them
that see it than it 's pleasant to them that bear it : for myself, I
never was so much enticed with the glorious name of a king, or the
royal authority of a queen, as delighted that God hath made me
and glory, and to defend this
his instrument to maintain his truth
kingdom from dishonor, damage, tyranny, and oppression. But
should I ascribe any of these things to myself ormy sexly weak-
ness, Iwere not worthy to live, and of all most unworthy of the
mercies I have received at God's hands, but to God only and
wholly all is given and ascribed.
The cares and troubles of a crown I cannot more fitly resemble
than to the drugs of a learned physician, perfumed with some
aromatical savor, or to bitter pills gilded over, by which they are
made more acceptable or less offensive, which indeed are bitter
and unpleasant to take; and for my own part, were it not for con-
science sake to discharge the duty that God hath laid upon me,
and to maintain his glory, and keep you in safety, in mine own dis-
position I should be willing to resign the place I hold to any other,
and glad to be freed of the glory with the labors, for it is not my
desire to live nor to reign longer than my life and reign shall be for
your good. And though you have had and may have many mightier
and wiser princes sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall
have any that will love you better.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I commend me to your loyal loves, and yours
to my best care and your further counsels, and I pray you, Mr.
Controller and Mr. Secretary, and you of my Council, that before
these gentlemen depart into their countries, you bring them all
to kiss my hand.
PROCLAMATION OF JAMES I SUSPENDING MONOPOLIES
(Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. May 7, 1603.)
[Preamble praising the devotion and loyalty of the people:]

The consideration whereof hath moved us to think of such
ways as for the present did occur unto us, wherein we might make
manifest to our people, how willing we are now, and will be ready
hereafter, to be forward in requiting their love, as they have been
in expressing it.
On which consideration whilst we were busy, we were informed

that the queen our sister, deceased, finding, some few years before
her death, that some things had passed her hands, at the impor-
tunity of her servants, whom she was willing to reward with little
burden to her estate (otherwise by necessary occasion exhausted),

which, though they had and might have foundation in princely
prerogative, yet either by too large extending thereof, or for the
most part in respect that they were of such nature as could hardly
be put in use without hindrance to multitudes of people, or else
committed to inferior persons, who in the execution thereof did
so exceedingly abuse the same, as they became intolerable, had
purposed to revoke all grants of that nature, and did begin with
some which were heard most unjust; putting the rest to the ex-
amination of her laws, to stand or fall, as in construction of law
they might consist or not.
[All grants and charters of monopoly suspended, together with
all licenses to dispense with penal laws, except grants to corpora-
tions and companies of arts or "misteries" and for enlarging trade
until examination can be had of them by the king with the advice
of his Council.
Protections, and assignments of debts abolished.
Saltpetermen and purveyors exhorted to have especial care.
Subjects to petition privately in an orderly manner, not publicly.
M
DELEGATION OF THE EXECUTION OF PENAL STATUTES
The Letter sent by all the Judges to the Lords
(S. P. D. November 8, 1604.)
May it please your Lordships,

We have (as we were required by your honorable letters of the
2ist of October last) conferred and considered amongst ourselves
(caUing to us his Majesty's counsel learned) of such matters as were
thereby referred unto us, and have resolved for law and conven-
ience as followeth:
That the prosecution and execution of any penal statute cannot
be granted to any, for that the made by the policy and
act, being
wisdom of the Parliament, for the general good of the whole realm,
and of trust committed to the king, as to the head of Justice and of
the weale publique the same cannot by law be transferred over to any
subject, neither can any general statute be prosecuted or executed
by his Majesty's grant, in other manner or order of proceeding, than
by the act itself is provided and prescribed. Neither do we find any
such grant to any in former ages. And of late years upon doubt con-
ceived that penal laws might be sought to be granted over, some
Parliaments have forborne to give forfeitures to the crown, and have
disposed thereof to the relief of the poor, and other charitable uses,
which cannot be granted or employed otherwise.
We are also of the opinion that it is inconvenient that the for-
feituresupon penal laws or others of hke nature should be granted
to any before the same be received or vested in his Majesty by
due and lawful proceedings, —
for that in our experience it maketh
the more violent and undue proceedings against the subject, to the
scandal of justice, and the offence of many. But if by the industry
or diligence of any, there accrueth any benefit to his Majesty, after
the receipt, such have been rewarded out of the same, at the king's
pleasure.
LETTER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL TO THE TOWN OF MIDDLEBURGH
(Council Register, September 8, 1614.)
A Messieurs
Bourgo-Maistres et Eschevins de la Ville de Middlebourg en
Zeland.
Messieurs
Cast chose notoire, d'ont vous eteez bien advertize (car sur ce
fait, vous auez depuis nagueres enuoy^ vos Deputez vers sa Ma**^
de la Grand Bretagne), qu'il y a eu vne grande & longue dispute
entre lesmarchands d'Angleterre, touchant le transport de drapes
blancs ou teincts & en couleur. Apres vn grand debat & meure
deliberation c^ est6 arreste par commandement de sa Maîe auec
I'aduis de Nous Autres de son Conseil que les Marchands Adven-
turiers (d'ont vne partie tient sa residence en v^^ ville) iusques k la

Tons Saincts continueront a traffiquer k la mode qu'ilz ont est^
accoustumez de faire. Mais k cause que la nouelle Compagnie auoit

achept^ vne bonne quantity de drapes, il fut ordonn^, qu'il leur
seroit loysible de les faire transporter, en cest interim, k Middle-
bourg, et de les y debiter. Ce qu'ayants fait Nous auons entendu
;
que le BaiKeu de V^ ville les a saisiz; en intention de les faire con-

fisquer comme les biens des Interlopers, dont il n'y a nuUe appa-
rence, puis que ces draps y ont est6 transport's soubs le bon-gre des
Marchands Adventuriers, et au heu de leur Estaple qui est vostre

ville. Ce qui nous fait vous prier de leur en donner main-leuie sans
remise ou plus de dispute: en quoy vous ferrez, ce qui convient k

bonne aUiance qui
I'equitie, et la est entre vostre ville et les Roy-
aumes du Roy noster Maistre.
Messieurs Nous prions Dieu, vous donner longue et heureuse vie.
Vous bien affectionez amys.
1
N. B. In tliis appendix, I have departed from my usual practice and have not
attempted to modernize the spelling.
o
PROCLAMATION OF JAMES I TOUCHING GRIEVANCES
Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. July lo, 162 1.

Brit. Mus. Proc. Coll. [506 h. iz (87).]
. . . His Highness observing that divers of them (though fit to receive

a full and determination in Parliament) are very meet and
period,
necessary, for the good of his people, to be settled and ordered in the
mean time by his own regal authority and direction; and some others
are of that quaHty and condition, as his Majesty needs no assistance
of Parliament for reforming the same, and would have reformed
them before the ParHament, if the true state of his subjects' grievances
had been then made known unto him.
Thereupon his Majesty in this short time of cessation of parlia-
mentary proceedings, not allowing himself any cessation or relaxa-
tion from his continual care and watch over the public, upon mature
deUberation with his Privy Council hath advised and resolved of
sundry particulars tending to the present case of his people, and to
the furtherance and advancement of the flourishing estate of this
kingdom [matters of justice].
. . .
And whereas his Majesty hath received information of sundry

grievances hghting upon many of his people and chiefly of the
poorer by reason of divers privileges, Ucenses, and other
sort,
letters patents procured from his Majesty upon suggestions made to
his Highness that the same should tend to the common good and
profit of his subjects: Howbeit upon examination it doth appear
that many of the said grants were not only obtained upon false and
untrue surmises but have been also notoriously abused; his Majesty
having heretofore published in print his dislike of such suits, to-
gether with his hatred and detestation of all importunities to obtain

or procure the same, is willing to manifest : That these abuses and
surreptitious against his precise charge and direction have confirmed
him in an utter distaste of suits of that nature, and is resolved, by
making those patents already obtained from him to be fruitless to
APPENDICES 167
the procurers, to discourage all others hereafter to press or impor-
tune him in the like. And therefore his Majesty, discerning that
these particular patents ensuing viz:
Of and concerning the making of gold and silver foliat
The licensing of pedlars and petty chapmen
The sole dressing of common arms
The export of Usts, shreds, and other like things
The sole making of tobacco pipes
The hot- press
The manufacture of playing cards and
The brogging of wool
have been found of evil consequence, and some of them have been
much abused, contrary to his Majesty's gracious intention, and the
same being made appear to the parties interested in these grants,
to
they have voluntarily submitted; which his Highness accepting,
hath taken order for the present surrender of the same patents, and
doth hereby absolutely forbid all further execution of them or any of
them, or of anything in them, or any of them contained, or of any
proclamation heretofore published for, or in any sort to the fur-
thering or strengthening of them, or any of them.
Commissions revoked:
Pardoning and dispensing apprenticeship.
Pardoning and dispensing conversion of arable to pasture.
Licensing of wine casks.
Making of denizens.
Granting of leets.
Passing of parks and free warrens.

Granting of fairs and markets.
Granting of tolls, tallages, &c.
Leasing of tithes.
Passing of concealments, intrusions, &c.

And whereas divers other privileges, licenses, and other like
patents have passed from his Majesty, as viz: touching
The and printing of leather
gilding
Printingupon cloth
The making of paving-tiles, dishes, pots, garden-posts, and vessels
of earth
The making of stone pots, stone jugs, and the like
1 68 APPENDICES
The importing of pikes, carps, eels, and scallops
The making of racket-hoops, rackets, and cloth balls
The making or selUng of oil invented for keeping armor
The importation of sturgeon
The making of garments of beaver
The making of hardwax
The making of chamlets
The making of back screens
The making of fortage and lineage of paper
The measuring of com, coal, and salt
The printing of briefs and other things upon one side of the paper
The weighing of hay and straw
The discovery of annoyances in the Thames, and ballasting ships,
his Majesty doth hereby publish and declare his gracious will and
pleasure that all and every persons that at any time hereafter shall
find themselves grieved, injured, or wronged by reason of any of the

said grants, or any may
clause, article, or thing therein contained,
take their remedy therefor by the common laws of the realm, or other
ordinary course of justice, any matter or thing in the said grants to
the contrary notwithstanding.
[Provision for wool, cloth, new draperies, and iron ordnance.]
And Majesty doth by these presents signify and declare his
his
gracious and princely pleasure that albeit he hath in good measure,
as the shortness of the time would permit, devised and resolved upon
the several remedies above rehearsed, for the care of his subjects; yet
it is not his Majesty's purpose that his grace and goodness to his
people in matters of like nature should bear no further fruit, but as
time and opportunity will permit, he will enlarge and extend the
same unto such other particulars, wherein he shall have cause to
conceive his subjects may be justly grieved; and that until the
sitting again of ParKament both his own and the ears of his Privy
Council shall be open to the modest and just complaints of his people
as well concerning monopolies and other patents of evil nature and
consequences, as concerning other grievances of the pubhc; admon-
ishing, nevertheless, that under color thereof, no man presume to
trouble his Majesty or his Council with causeless clamors, pro-
ceeding of humor, or private respects. Given at our court, &c. &c.
PROCLAMATION OF JAMES I TOUCHING GRIEVANCES
(Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. Feb. 14, 1623.)
[Refers to his proclamation of July 10, 162 1. . . .]
His Majesty continuing the same his gracious and princely dis-
position, which is not confined unto times and meetings in Parlia-
ment, but at all seasons and upon all occasions watcheth over the
public weal of his kingdoms hath . . . thought fit again to invite his
subjects to embrace his gracious and princely favor for the reliev-
ing of them in whatsoever their just grievances, and that in a more
easy and ready way than hath been propounded at any time hereto-
fore, not doubting but his loving subjects (well weighing his abund-
ant goodness and care towards them) will apply themselves unto his
Majesty for their rehef in such modest and temperate course, as
may tend to the glory of his government, their own weal and tran-
quility, and and
utter abohshing of all those private whisperings
causeless rumors proceeding from particularhumors which, without
giving his Majesty any opportunity of reformation by particular
knowledge of any fault, serve to no other purpose but to occasion
and blow abroad discontentment. And therefore his Majesty doth
hereby pubhsh and declare that he hath appointed
George, Marquis of Buckingham, lord high admiral of England,
Thomas, Earl of Arundell and Surrey, earl marshal of England,
WiUiam, Earl of Pembroke, lord chamberlain of his Majesty's
Household,
Launcelot, Bishop of Winchester, and
WiUiam, Bishop of St. David,
select and principal persons, authorizing and requiring them, or
any two or more of them, to sit once a week, at least, at his Majesty's
Palace of Whitehall, to receive the petitions and complaints of his
loving subjects concerning their just grievances, and to certify the
same to himself or his Privy Council as shall be fittest for due re-
1 70 APPENDICES
dress: Wherein Majesty doth declare that as it is not his in-
his
tent that matters of ordinary nature or consequence should be
drawn thither, but left to the proper courts of justice, which have
cognizance thereof: So his Majesty doth not restrain their com-
plaints to any particular sort of grievances, but is well pleased that
his subjects may any notable oppression,
freely resort thither for
exaction, bribery, or other grievance, where the quality of the of-
fence, or eminence of the person, or office of the offender may re-
quire an extraordinary proceeding. Nevertheless his Majesty doth
admonish that under color thereof, no man presume to present
there any causeless clamors which if they shall do, they must ex-
pect to be punished with the same severity which their complaints
aimed and endeavored unjustly to draw on others.
ORDER IN COUNCIL
Directing the preparation of a proclamation revoking certain patents

and commissions
(C. R. March 31, 1639.)
According to his Majesty's especial direction, their Lordships,

having this day considered of divers grants, Ucenses, and commis-
sions which have been procured upon untrue suggestions, or which
upon experience do prove very burdensome and grievous to the
king's subjects; and of other intended grants which have not as yet
passed the great seal, have thought fit and ordered that his Majesty's
attorney-general shall draw a proclamation for their Lordships to
sign for revocation of the commissions, licenses, letters patents, and
intended grants following, or for the prohibition of the execution
of them as the case shall require, upon which declaration his
Majesty's attorney-general is to proceed legally to revoke them.
That is to say
1. A grant for weighing hay and straw in London and Westminster
and three miles compass
2. A patent of registration of the commission for bankrupts in
divers counties
3. The patent for gauging of red herrings
4. The commission for cottages and inmates
5. The commission for scrivenors and brokers
6. The commission for compounding with offenders for trans-
portation of butter
7. The commission for compounding with offenders touching to-
bacco
8. The commission for compounding with offenders touching log-
wood to be brought in
9. The grant for marking of iron
10. The commission to compound for selling of under-sheriffs'
places
172 APPENDICES
11. The commission for compounding for destruction of woods
in iron- works
12. The patent for sealing of bone lace
13. The grant for marking and gauging butter-casks
14. The commission for conceahnents and encroachments within
20 miles of London
15. An inhibition to be pubhshed that no Enghshmen do hence-
forward take upon them the degree of baronets in Scotland or
Nova Scotia
16. A license to transport sheepskins and lambskins
17. The commission to take men bound not to dress venison, par-
tridge, and pheasants in divers alehouses, ordinaries, and taverns
18. Petty corporations to be such as are not past the great
recalled,
seal, the rest to be prohibited to be executed, and declared that
they shall be proceeded against by quo warranto, — Comb-
makers, Hatband-makers, Gutstring-makers, Butchers, To-
bacco-pipe-makers, Horners, Spectacle-makers
19. Corporation of Brick- makers, and all indentures touching the
same, to be recalled
20. The licenses to transport EngUsh butter to be recalled
21. All grants of fines, penalties, and forfeitures by letters patents,
privy seals, or otherwise before Judgment, to be recalled
22. The commission for wine-casks to be recalled
23. The commission for cards and dice respited until Michaelmas
next
24. The commission for kelp and seaweed, recalled
25. Patent or intended grant for sealing of hnen cloth, recalled
26. The patent for gathering of rags, recalled
27. Office of factor for Scottish merchants, recalled

28. All patents for new
inventions not put into practice within 3
years after the date of the grant, recalled
29. The proclamation and commission for brewing to be recalled
30. An office and grant for sealing of buttons to be recalled
31. An office and grant for the sole transportation of lamperns to

be recalled,
and all proclamations, warrants, and letters of assistance for put-
ting the said grants, licenses, and commissions in execution, to be
recalled.
R
PROCLAMATION OF CHARLES I REVOKING CERTAIN PATENTS AND
COMMISSIONS
(Soc. Ant. Proc. Coll. April 9, 1639.)
Whereas divers grants, licenses, privileges, and commissions have

been procured from his Majesty, some under his great seal of Eng-
land and some under his privy seal, signet, or sign manual, upon
pretences that the same would tend to the common good and
profit of his subjects, which since upon experience hath been
found prejudicial and inconvenient to his people, contrary to his
Majesty's gracious intention in granting the same; And whereas
also upon like suggestions, there hath been obtained from his
Majesty, the lords, and others of his Privy Council divers warrants
and letters of assistance for the execution of those grants, hcenses,
privileges,and commissions according to his Majesty's good inten-
tion and meaning therein.
Forasmuch as his most excellent Majesty (whose royal ear and
providence is ever intent on the pubUc good of his people) doth
now discern that the particular grants, hcenses, and commissions
hereafter expressed, have been found in consequence far from those
grounds and reasons wherefore they were founded, and in their
execution have been notoriously abused, he is now pleased of his
mere grace and favor to all his loving subjects (with the advice
of his Privy Council) by his regal power to publish and declare the
several commissions and hcenses hereafter following, whether the
same have passed his great seal, privy seal, signet, and sign manual,
or any of them, to be from hence utterly void, revoked, and hereby
determined
That is to say :
—
A commission and inmates
for cottages
A commission touching scrivenors and brokers
A commission for compounding with offenders touching tobacco
A commission for compounding with offenders touching butter
—
1 74 APPENDICES
A commission for compounding with offenders touching log-
wood
A commission for compounding with sheriffs for selling under-
sheriffs' places
A commission for compounding with offenders for destruction
ofwoods for iron- works
A commission for concealments and encroachments within 20
miles of London
A license to transport sheep- and lambskins
A commission to take men bound to dress no venison, pheasants,
or partridges in inns, alehouses, ordinaries, and taverns
A commission touching licensing of wine-casks
A commission for licensing of brewers
A license for sole transporting of lamperns
and all proclamations, warrants, or letters of assistance for put-
ting in execution of the said commissions or licenses be from hence-
forth declared void, determined, and hereby revoked to all intents
and purposes.
And his Majesty in like favor and ease to his subjects is further
pleased to declare his royal will and pleasure to be, that the par-
ticular grants hereafter mentioned (upon feigned suggestions, ob-
tained from him, to public damage) whereby the same have passed
his Majesty's great seal, privy seal, signet, or sign manual or any
of them, shall not hereafter be put in execution viz :
A grant for weighing of hay and straw in London and

Westminster and 3 miles compass
An office of register to the commission for bankrupts in divers
counties of the realm
An office or grant for gauging of red herrings
An office or grant for the marking of iron made within the realm
An office or grant for sealing of bone lace
A grant for making and gauging of butter-casks
A grant of privilege touching kelp and seaweed
A grant for sealing of linen cloth
A grant for gathering of rags
An office or grant of factor for Scottish merchants
An office or grant for searching and sealing of foreign hops
A grant for sealing of buttons
APPENDICES 175
All grants of fines, penalties, and forfeitures before judgment

granted, or mentioned to be granted, by letters patents, privy
seals, signet, sign manual, or otherwise
All patents for new inventions not put in practice within 3 years
next after the date of the said grants
And the several grants of incorporation made unto
Hatband-makers
Gutstring-makers
Spectacle- makers
Comb-makers
Tobacco-pipe- makers
Butchers and Homers.
And his Majesty doth further require and command that there
shall be a proceeding against the said patentees by quo warranto or
scire facias to recall the said grants and patents, unless they will
voluntarily surrender and yield up the same and also all proclama-
:
tions, warrants, or letters of assistance obtained from his Majesty or

the lords and others of his Privy Council for execution thereof, from
henceforth utterly to cease and be determined, and are hereby
absolutely revoked and recalled.
x\nd his Majesty doth further expressly charge and command, all
and singular the patentees, grantees, or others any Vays interested or

claiming under the aforenamed grants, licenses, or commissions, or
any of them and their deputies, that they or any of them do not at
any time hereafter presume to put in use or execution any of the said
grants, commissions, or licenses, or any thing therein contained, or
any proclamations, warrants, or letters of assistance obtained in that
behalf, upon pain of his Majesty's indignation, and to be proceeded
against as contemners of his Majesty's royal commands, whereof he
will require a strict account.
Given at our Manor of York the 9th of April in the 15th year of our
reign, 1639.
SIMON sturtevant's metallica, or the treatise of metallica,
BRIEFLY COMPREHENDING THE DOCTRINE OF DIVERS NEW METAL-
LICAl INVENTIONS, BUT ESPECIALLY HOW TO ANNEAL, MELT, AND
WORK ALL KINDS OF METAL ORES, IRONS, AND STEELS WITH SEA-
COAL, PIT-COAL, EARTH-COAL, AND BRUSH FUEL. IMPRINTED AT
LONDON BY GEORGE ELD. CUM PRIVILEGIO ANNO l6l2, MAY 22.
The Preface to the Reader.

Gentle Reader, I am not ignorant how they that are willing to
apprehend and assist new businesses are desirous to be satisfied in
these points. First, concerning the perfect and exact knowledge of
that invention, wherein they are to deal and negotiate, for as the
common proverb saith — " Ignoti nulla cupido." The second is
touching the worth and goodness of the business, and how the bene-
fit thereof maybe raised. The third is the ability of the inventioner to
effectand perform his project propounded. The fourth is concern-
ing the manner of contracting and bargaining; in all which I wiU
endeavor to give the best satisfaction that I may, out of the pre-
cepts and grounds of this present Treatise of Metallica. And there-
fore concerning the first point. The transcript of his Majesty's most
gracious grant and privilege doth evidently show and inform the
reader, that amongst many other inventions granted for one and
thirty years, myself, my executors, deputies, and assigns, may only
make, practice, and put in use, within any of his Majesty's reahns and
dominions, the working, melting, and effecting of iron, steel, and
other metals with sea-coal and pit-coal; the principal end of which
invention is, that the wood and timber of our country might be saved,
maintained, and preserved from the great consumption and waste of
our common furnaces and iron-mills, which, as they are now ordin-
arily built and framed, can burn, spend, and consume no other fuel
N. B. This appendix, as well as all which follow, is taken from the reproduc-
1
tions by the Great Seal Patent Office, 1857. Here,, however, as elsewhere, I
. . .
have modernized the spelling.

—
APPENDICES ^77
than charcoal, the which device, if it may be effected accordingly (as

I make no doubt but by God's blessing I shall), will prove to be the
most profitable business and invention that ever was known or
invented in England these many years.
For (to speak nothing of the great benefit and profit which may be
raised and made by twenty other inventions comprised and compre-
hended under the patent), the yearly value of this metal business
alone will amount unto 330 thousand pounds per annum, after the
second and third year, as appeareth by this calculation.
A calculation showing how the metal invention or art, which
maketh all kinds of metals or metallic substance with pit-coal or sea-
coal, will be worth per annum 330 thousand pounds immediately
after the first two years, which are the allotted times for trials and
conformities without any charges (except the charges of trials) to
the patentees, partners, assistants, and dealers. There are planted
already in England and Wales eight hundred mills for the making of
iron, for there are four hundred mills in Surrey, Kent, and Sussex, as
the townsmen of Haslemore have testified and numbered unto me;
there are also 200 mills in Wales, and 20 in Nottinghamshire, as the
author hath been credibly informed.
Now we may well suppose that all England, Scotland, and Ireland
(besides the forenamed shires) will make up the number of 180 mills
more, being in all 800 mills. Moreover, one mill alone spendeth
yearly in charcoal 500 pounds and more, as divers clerks and work-
men in the iron business have credibly testified, which in pit-coal will
be done with the charges of 30 or 40 pounds after the inventioner's
manner and invention, or at the most with 50 pounds, where carriage
is far and chargeable.
So that the invention in the 800 iron-mills will save and gain
declaro — the owners of those 320 thousand pounds yearly,
mills
over and above the ordinary and annual gains, as it appeareth by this
proportion.
One mill \ I Ergo 800 mills save
alone saveth > 400 U \ yearly 320 thousand

'
yearly ) pounds
Again, the said metallic invention, being put and converted to lead,
tin, copper, brass, and glass-metal, and all the several minerals of
1 78 APPENDICES
England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, will questionless clear yearly,
by means of fuel, above ten thousandpounds more, over and besides
the ordinary gains in the said business. So that yearly iron reve-
nues, added unto these other metallic revenues, do amount unto 330
thousand pounds, as was said before.
Now out of these metallic gains of 330 thousand pounds yearly, the
owners of the mills, hearths, and furnaces may have and receive liberal
rates, and allowed and allotted unto them over and besides their
ordinary gains, only in Ueu of conforming their furnaces, refineries,
and chafferies to this invention of pit-coal and earth- coal. And also
the king's most excellent Majesty, the prince his Highness, the Duke
of York, the Lord Viscount Rochester, and other parties interested in
the patent may, by their composition and agreement with the owners
and ironmasters, yearly receive, by way of rents and licenses, the
residue of that gain which remaineth over and above that which was
allotted and allowed to the ironmasters, for applying of this inven-
tion to their ordinary way of making of iron, as more fully shall be
specified, shown, and proved in the appendix of this treatise, which
I am now preparing for the printer and the press with all convenient
speed.
This may suffice, therefore, to give the reader satisfaction concern-
ing the two first points, for the knowledge and worth of the businesses
and concerning the manner how certain yearly annuities may be
raised to the dealers and assistants.
Now to persuade the third point, that the author is able to effect
the work undertaken in as ample manner as he propoundeth, we
plead and allege as foUoweth.
First, the inventioner, by his study, industry, and practice, hath
already brought to pass and pubUshed divers projects, and new

devices, and new projects, as well hteral as mechanical, very bene-
ficial to the commonwealth. His literary inventions do appear and
are known partly by his printed treatise of Dibere Adam, which is
a scholastical engine automaton, and partly in divers other manu-
scripts which he hath to show. His new mechanics already per-

formed are be seen in the inventions which he called by the names
to
of press- wares, wood pleits, balance, engine, baramyha, and Hubla,
of all which in private speech he is ready more largely to confer, and
to manifest their truth and goodness at his workhouses at Islington
APPENDICES 1 79
and Highbury. To conclude, therefore, he doubteth not but (by
God's blessing and assistance, semblably with success),
to effect his invention of iron-works,' as also all his other Thus bavid
reasoneth
metalUc devices and inventions here contained in the from the bear
and hon to
patent or privilege of Metallica. Sanf''"''
Secondly, the consideration of things in the like nature
with it, are good inducements to persuade well of this project for
brick-making, brewing, dyeing, casting of brass-works, and were
(not many years since) done altogether with the fuel of wood and
charcoal, instead whereof sea-coal is now used as effectuallyand to
as good a use and purpose.
Again (that which is somewhat nearer the mark) the blacksmith
long agone forged all his iron with charcoal (as in some places where
they are cheap they continue this course still), but these many years
small sea-coal hath and doth serve the turn as well and sufficiently.
Add hereunto, that very lately, by a wind furnace, green glass for
windows is made as well by pit-coal at Winchester House in South-
wark as it is done in other places with much waste and consuming of
infinite store of billets and other wood fuel.
Thirdly, the inventioner hath already experimented and made
trial of the chief particular means and instruments of divers cheap
ways of making irons in real and substantial models to himself (though

in small things according as his means would give him leave). And
this of his credit and honesty he avoucheth and protesteth, where-
fore he more confidently presumeth to work the same effects in
grander instruments and means of trial, after that he hath received
allowance of the dealers and assistants for it.
Fourthly, there can be no doubt of performing the matter pro-
pounded, if the inventioner can but make or cause sea-coal to become
as serviceable for metalUc purposes as wood and charcoal are, the
art and skill whereof consisteth chiefly in three points. The first is to
bring earth-coal to that equahty of heat that wood or charcoal hath,
that is to say, that itmake neither hotter nor colder fire than the wood
or charcoal doth. The second means is so to order and prepare pit-
coal that all mahgnant properties which are averse to the nature of
metaUic substances may be extracted from it, or at least destroyed in
it. The third means is the addition and infusion of those deficient
properties which, as they are in charcoal, so ought they to be found in
pit-coal.
l8o APPENDICES
Now this threefold mistery and secret, the author can certainly
perform and achieve by the powerful efficacy and means of his dex-
terous prerogative instruments devised for this purpose, as more at
large shown both in his treatise and the appendix, which very
is
shortly shall come forth, and also shall be further confirmed and
justified by his daily experiments and trials, which he will be ready
to show to them whom they shall in any way touch or concern, or to

them who are otherwise desirous to assist and deal, for the experi-
menting and accomphshing of these so worthy good businesses. And
then also shall they know my purpose for contracting and bargaining
by word of mouth, as it is best fitting for private dealings and nego-
tiatings.
And thus (having briefly touched these four promised points) I

conclude and shut up this preface of Metallica, humbly and un-
feignedly beseeching the Lord, who by His Holy Spirit inspired
Exod. 31 i I,
Bezaleel, Aoliah, and Hiram with the light of mechanical
li Nlsi'dom.'
inventions, and in all manner of workmanship for His
fr?t.^"psaim effectual blessings in these our enterprises, that (that)
"'
which was begun in His fear, may be prosecuted and
fully accomphshed and built by His heavenly and helpful hands, to
the glory of His name, and for the good welfare and emolument of the
king's most excellent Majesty, the church, and the political estate
wherein we live. Amen. —
Simon Sturtevant.
Metallica
CAPUT I
THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS MAJESTY'S INDENTtTRE
Reader. As I understand you have promised and covenanted in

your patent more fully and evidently to express and enlarge in a
printed treatise to be called Metallica, every point and part of your
privileged business, to the intent that the reader might the better
conceive and judge of the inventions propounded, and might the
sooner also be induced to assist and set forward so good and worthy
works, first therefore I demand of you by what name and appli-
cation you entitle that general head, under the which you reduce
and comprehend all the several arts and inventions of your patent.
APPENDICES l8l
Author. The general, that comprehendeth all the other particular

inventions, is called Metallica,which is a word derived and de-
duced from the Greek and Latin words metallon and metallum,
which signifies in English metals, which properly are mineral sub-
stances digged out of the earth, of which sort are iron, lead, tin,
copper, brass, gold, and silver, &c.
R. 2. Doth your patent of Metallica only contain the making of
metals by the means of sea-coal and pit-coal, and with your other
metaUical instruments which you have devised for that purpose?
A. His Majesty's grant is very large and ample, for it doth not
only comprehend and privilege the making of all kinds of metals,
after the manner prescribed, but also equally authorizeth and Hcens-
eth any other mechanical inventions comprehended under the general
definition of Metallica, which is mentioned in the schedules or manu-
script treatise annexed to the patent, which schedules have the
same force and validity as his Majesty's indenture, itself.
R. 3. Then that I may know and understand the extent of your
privilege, repeat, I pray you, word by word, definition of Metallica;
as it is written in the said schedules annexed to your patent.
A. Metallica, mentioned in the petition, is thus defined. Metallica
is an art or invention, showing how divers things and materials,
now made and attained unto in a very chargeable sort, after the
ordinary way, may be made and attained to after a more cheaper
manner, and as with the help of common instruments, so more
especially by divers new devised metallical instruments and means.
From these metaUical instruments the art is generally called
Metallica.
R. 4. This summary definition giveth me some general hght and
understanding into your businesses, but that I may be the more
fully satisfied, I pray you rehearse also the tenor of his Majesty's
grant as it is under the broad seal of England.
A LETTER PATENT
James R.
This indenture, made the xxix day of February, in the year of the
reign of our sovereign Lord James, by the grace of God, King of
England, Scotland [sic], France, and Ireland the ninth, and of Scot-
l82 APPENDICES
land the forty-fifth. Between our said sovereign lord of the one party,
and Simon Sturtevant, Gentleman, of the other party.

Whereas the said Simon Sturtevant, by his long study and great
charge, hath attained unto divers new exact mechanic arts, mis-
teries, ways, and secrets of his own invention, whereby all kinds
of metals, works, and other things and materials, as namely irons,

steels, leads, tins, coppers, brasses, and such Uke —
Secondly, all
kinds of metallic concoctions, as sand-metals, ash -metals, ammels,
and such hke — Thirdly, all kinds of burnt earth, as tiles, paving-
stones, bricks, and such like — Fourthly, all kinds of press- wares, as
pressed tiles, pressed bricks, pressed monions, pressed stones, and
such Hke, with divers other things and materials now made after the
ordinary course, with woodand charcoal, may be as well made,
fuel
wrought, and effected, as the said Simon Sturtevant aflSrmeth,
with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, whereby the woods
now commonly wasted, in all the chief woodland countries of this
realm of England, by iron-mills and such other metaUical furnaces
and hearths, may be preserved from the great consumption thereof,
and saved from hke inconvenience in other his Majesty's domin-
ions, all which premises so by this new invention to be made, the
said Simon Sturtevant hath undertaken shall be in substance and
for use as sufficient and as good as the other like materials now
made and wrought with the chargeable and excessive waste of wood
and charcoal. And whereas, also, the said Simon Sturtevant, for
the better making, working, and effecting, heating, burning, melt-
ing the said metals, works, things, and materials, by and with
sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, hath by his said in-
vention and skill, invented divers furnaces, hearths, tests, tools,
engines, mills, and other instruments and means, new, and of his
own invention, never heretofore used or put in practice by any other;
and hath also, by his said inventions and skill, attained to the know-
ledge how to use and employ divers other common instruments
to the making, working, and effecting the said metals, works,
materials, and things, which other common instruments have
been heretofore and are used in other arts, sciences, and manual
occupations, but were not, nor have been as yet, converted, used,
or employed to, for, or about the making, working, effecting, and
producing the said metals, works, and things, which said skill and
APPENDICES 183
inventions of the said S. Sturtevant, and the said metals, works,
things, and other materials, and the means and instruments whereby
to work and effect the same, are in some measure mentioned and
expressed in the schedule or schedules to these presents annexed,
and shall be more amply, and particularly demonstrated,
fully,
specified, described, and contained in a large treatise, which the

said Simon Sturtevant hath already conceived, and shall be put
in print, and so pubUshed before the last day of Easter term next
ensuing the date hereof, which treatise so to be pubUshed shall be
entitled —A Treatise of Metallica, which said invention of the said
Simon may and will prove beneficial to the commonwealth, both
in regard of the abundant plenty of the said things and materials
which it will daily bring forth, as also because it saveth and pre-
serveth abundance of timber, charcoal, and wood fuel, and other
things and commodities wastefully consumed and spent, the gen-
eral want whereof already is felt. And forasmuch as our said sovereign
lord is given to understand that this art, skill, industry, and inven-
tions of the said Simon Sturtevant, of making, casting, founding,
working, and acquiring of the aforesaid metals, and works of iron,
materials, and things by sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel,
and all and every, or any of them, and also the making of the said new
devised engines, hearths, furnaces, and other means and instruments,
and the employing of the said instruments used in other sciences
and arts, to the making, working, effecting, and producing the said
metals and other works, materials, and things, is a thing not yet
practiced, nor brought into any trade, occupation, or mistery, within
any of his kingdoms, but is an invention in substance new, and
which shall not prejudice or cross any from privilege or grant by
his Majesty heretofore made or granted under the great seal of Eng-
land, for the using and making of any former invention, and there-
fore fit to be privileged for a certain time, the rather for that his
Highness conceiveth that the said inventions and skills may and
will become profitable and good for the commonwealth of these
realms, and augment his customs and imposts, in regard it
also
bringeth forth great and abundant store of the aforesaid materials
and things, not only for the use of his Highness's realms and domin-
ions here at home, but also for traific and merchandise into for-
eign countries abroad, which are customable. In regard whereof.
184 A PPENDICES
and also for and in consideration of the good, faithful services here-
toforedone and performed under his said Majesty by the said Simon
Sturtevant, as also to the end that the said Simon Sturtevant may
receive some convenient recompense,
benefit, and profit for his said
and charges in perfecting these
services, as also for his studies, labors,
inventions to the common good which may ensue hereby to his
Highness's realms and dominions.
This indenture witnesseth that our said sovereign lord the king
of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, and of
his prerogative royal, hath given and granted, and by these pre-
sents for him, his heirs, and and grant to
successors, doth give,
the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and as-
signs, and his and their deputy and deputies, the sole, full, abso-
lute, and free power, Hberty, and authority, to make, work, pro-
duce, acquire, and bring forth, all kinds of the aforesaid metals,
and other the materials and things, by and with sea-coal, pit-coal,
earth-fuel, and all, every, and any of them, in all parts and places
of his Majesty's realms of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales,
and also within all the same places and dominions, to make, frame,
erect, acquire, and provide, or cause to be made, framed, erected,
acquired, and provided, all necessary instruments and means, as
namely: All workhouses, furnaces, hearths, mills, structures, engines,
vessels, tests, tools, instruments, devices, or things of iron, or other

stuff or substance whatsoever, which are already in use in any other
trade, mistery, art, or occupation, and as yet not exercised or used
in or about the making, working, casting, founding, or acquiring
and producing of the said metals and other materials and things,
for and to the end and purpose aforesaid, viz. To make, work, and
:
effect the said metals and other materials and things, by and with
sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, and all, every, or any
of them; and also in all the said places and dominions, to make,
frame, and erect, use, and employ, or cause to be framed and erected
all the said new furnaces, hearths, devices, instruments and means,
which are merely of the new invention of the said Simon Sturte-
vant to, for, in, or about the making, working, casting, founding,
acquiring, and producing of the said metals, and other the said mate-
rials and things, and to all or any other purpose, use, or uses what-
soever, in as ample sort or manner as they or any of them are de-

APPENDICES 185
scribed, expressed, ormentioned in the schedule to these presents

annexed, or shall be more fully demonstrated and specified in the
treatise of Metallica, which shall be, as aforesaid, printed before
the last day of Easter term next ensuing; and our said sovereign
lord doth further, by these presents, for him, his heirs, and suc-
cessors, assign, appoint, ordain, constitute, Hcense, and authorize the
said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
to have the sole power, liberty, and authority, by and with sea-coal,
pit-coal, and brush fuel, and all, every, and any of them, and by his said
inventions, arts, and skills, invented and devised for the making of
all kinds of the said metals and materials and things, as workhouses,
furnaces, mills, quernes, structures, engines, vessels, tools, instru-

ments, devices, and things heretofore used in any other arts or sci-
ences, to be employed or used in or about the making, working,

or producing the said metals, things, and materials, or any of them,
as aforesaid, and also to have the sole power, liberty, and author-
ity for the making, framing, erecting, or producing of all the said
new devices, instruments, and means metalUcal, as aforesaid, in
what sort or about what things soever the same or any of them
shall be used or employed; and that the said Simon Sturtevant, his
executors, assigns, administrators, and their deputy and deputies,
and none other, without his or their special license or toleration,
shall or may make any kind or kinds of the said metals and other
the materials and things, by or with sea-coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and
brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, by means of, or by using
and employing the said inventions of the said Simon or any part
or parcel of them, or any of them, or make, frame, and erect any
the said workhouses, furnaces, hearths, mills, structures, engines,
tests, vessels, tools, instruments, devices, and things heretofore
used in any other arts or sciences which, by the said inventions
of the said Simon, shall be transferred or converted, or turned to be
used, exercised, and employed in or about the making, casting,
founding, working, acquiring, and producing of the said metals or
materials, things, and devices, by or with sea-coal, earth-coal, pit-
coal, and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, or to make, frame,
or erect any of the said devices, instruments, and means of the said
Simon, either to the making, casting, or working, or effecting all or
any of the said works, metals, or materials, by or with sea-coal, earth-
1 86 APPENDICES
coal,and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them, or to any other end
or purpose whatsoever; to have and to hold, use, exercise, and en-
joy the sole making, casting, founding, working, tempering, ac-
quiring, and producing of all and every the said metals, and other
the said premises, in manner and form aforesaid, and to the end
and purposes aforesaid, unto the said S. Sturtevant, his executors,
administrators, or assigns, and by his and their deputy and depu-
ties, and during the time and term of 31 years now next com-
for
ing, immediately from and after the date of these presents, yield-
ing, rendering, and paying therefor yearly, and every year im-
mediately from and after the date hereof, for and during the said
term of 31 years, to our said sovereign lord, his heirs, and success-
ors, at the receipt of his Highness's' Exchequer at Westminster,
always in the term of St. Michael, ten parts of such sum or sums
of money and other clear yearly profits, in 33 parts, to be divided
as he, the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or
assigns, shall yearly have or receive, during the said 31 years now
next coming, and by way of composition or otherwise, for or by mak-
ing, framing, or "erecting, casting, founding, and acquiring, or other-
wise for licensing or authorizing any person or persons whatsoever to
make, frame, cast, erect, found, or acquire, any of the said mate-
rials, workhouses, hearths, mills, structures, furnaces, engines,
vessels, tests, tools, instruments, devices, and things aforesaid, the
charges and expenses in and about the same, and every of them,
expended out of the said 33 parts always deducted and allowed to
the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and as-
signs; and likewise, yielding, tendering, and paying unto the most
excellent Prince Henry, eldest son of our said sovereign lord, Prince
of Wales, Duke and Earl of Chester, and his execu-

of Cornwall,
tors, or administrators yearly, and every year during the said term
of one and thirty years, in the same terms of St. Michael, five parts
of the said sum and sums of money, and other clear profits in 33
parts to be divided, to be always paid and delivered to such person
or persons as the said most excellent prince shall appoint to receive
the same, at his Highness's palace of St. James, in the county of
Middlesex; and also yielding, rendering, and paying unto the most
high and mighty Prince Charles, Duke of York, second son of our
said sovereign lord, unto his executors, and administrators, during
APPENDICES 187
the said term of thirty-one years in the said terms of St. Michael
the Archangel, two parts of the said sum and sums of money, and
other clear profits aforesaid, in 31 \sic\ parts to be divided, to be
always paid and delivered at the said palace of St. James, to such
person or persons as our said sovereign lord the king, during the
minority of the said Duke of York, and after his full age, he the
said duke shall appoint to receive the same; and moreover, yield-
ing, rendering, and paying unto Robert, Viscount Rochester, Baron
of Wainick, his executors, and admim'strators, in the said terms of
St. Michael, one part of the said sum and sums of money and other
clear parts to be divided; and as concerning the residue of the said

sum and sums of money, and other clear profits to be divided, it
shall and may be lawful to and for the said Simon Sturtevant, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, to retain and keep one part
thereof to his and their discretion, and in such maimer and form,
and by such rates and proportions as he and they shall, in their
discretions, think meet to dispose thereof, and to expend and to
distribute the same, and every part and parcel thereof, amongst
such person or persons as shall adventure, join, be assisting, aid-
ing, or helping to the advancing or setting forwards of the works
and inventions aforesaid, or any of them, and amongst such per-
son or persons as shall be the owners of the said workhouses, fur-
naces, hearths, mills, structures, engines, vessels, tests, tools, in-
struments, devices, and things before mentioned, or any of them.
And Simon Sturtevant, for him, his heirs, executors, ad-
the said
ministrators, or assigns, and for every of them, doth covenant and
grant, by these presents, to and with our sovereign lord, his heirs and
successors, that he, the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, ad-
ministrators, or assigns, shall and will yearly, and every year during
the said term of one and thirty years, well and truly yield, render,
satisfy, content, and pay, or cause to be contented and paid, the said
ten parts of the said clear profits, in manner as aforesaid unto our
sovereign lord, his heirs, and successors, and shall and will, likewise,
during the aforesaid term of one and thirty years, well and truly yield,
render, satisfy, content, and pay unto the said Prince of Wales, his
executors, or administrators, the said five parts of the said clear pro-
fits, in manner and form aforesaid. And also to the said Duke, his
executors or administrators, the said two parts of the said clear profits
1 88 APPENDICES
in manner and form aforesaid. And also to the said Lord Viscount
Rochester, his executors or administrators, the said one part of the clear
profits in manner and form same one part is formerly in these
as the
presents appointed to be yielded, rendered, and paid to the said Lord
Viscount Rochester, his executors and administrators; and foras-
much as when the said skill, work, and inventions of the said Simon
Sturtevant, which hereby his great industry, cost, and expenses hath
attained to, shall appear and be made commonly known, it is very
likely that many persons will privily of the said Simon Sturtevant, his
executors, administrators, or assigns, make, frame, and erect the like,
and peradventure having his platform, add thereunto some further
new invention for their gains, or otherwise put the same in practice
at their pleasure, and make the said metals and other materials and
premises aforesaid, thereby reaping the fruits of the labors of the
said Simon and so defraud both our said sovereign lord
Sturtevant,
and the said prince, and the said Duke of York, and the said Lord
Viscount Rochester, and also the said S. Sturtevant, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and such others as shall adventure there-
in, of a great part of the benefit and profit which might otherwise
accrue unto our said sovereign lord, and to the said most excellent
prince and Duke of York, and to the said other parties, by such skill,
work, and invention aforesaid. Our said sovereign lord, therefore,
favoring the good endeavors and studies of the said Simon Sturte-
vant in the premises, and his former service done unto his Highness,
for him, his heirs, and successors, for the better encouragement of him
the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
in the same, and the better to enable him to undergo and bear the
burden and charge thereof, and to avoid all deceit that any way may
hinder our said sovereign lord, or the said most excellent prince, or
Duke of York, orany of the said parties aforesaid, doth by these
presents declare and signify, that his Majesty's royal will and pleasure
is, and our sovereign lord doth hereby straightly will and command
all and every person or persons of what state, degree, or condition
soever, that they nor any of them, during the said term of one and
thirty years, shall not presume nor attempt by any art, device, skill,
or cunning, directly or indirectly, without the special Ucense, allow-
ance, and consent of him the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors,
administrators, or assigns, or of his or their deputy or deputies, there-
APPENDICES 189
unto by him or them lawfully authorized, to make, frame, erect, con-

trive, or perform any kind or kinds of the aforesaid metals, and the
other materials and things, or any of them, by or with sea-coal,
earth-coal, and brush fuel, and all or any of them, or any of the said
new devised instruments and things, either to or about the making
or working the said metals, things, and materials as aforesaid, or to
any end or purpose whatsoever, or to do any act or thing whereby,
or by means whereof, our said sovereign lord the king, or the said
most excellent Prince of Wales, or the said Duke of York, or the said
Simon Sturtevant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or other
the said parties, shall or may sustain any prejudice, loss, or detri-
ment, in the said inventions or works, or in any profit or commodity
which they or any of them may or might otherwise receive or enjoy
by means of the said inventions or works, or any of them, upon pain
of the high displeasure of our said sovereign lord the king, and upon
pain of imprisonment of their bodies, and forfeitures of all and every
the said materials, instruments, and things aforesaid, which shall be
wrought, framed, and made by any person or persons contrary to the
tenor of these presents and royal prohibition therein, with such
further penalties, pains, and forfeitures, as by the law and statutes
of the said realms can or may be inflicted upon them, or any of them,
for their willful and obstinate disobedience and contempt of his
Highness's commandment and prerogative royal. And if it shall
happen that any person or persons contemptuously neglecting this
his Majesty's vnll and pleasure in these presents declared, after
notice thereof given, shall make or acquire any kind or kinds of the
aforesaid metals, and other the materials and things, by or with sea-
coal, pit-coal, earth-coal, and brush fuel, or all, some, or any of them,
by any of the said means or inventions, or any part or parcel of them,

or any of them, or shall frame, work, erect, use, or employ any such
or the Uke engines, instruments, tools, for and to the purposes afore-
said, the same and all and every of them shall be taken and seized,
by the constable or other officer dweUing nearest thereunto, to and

for the only use and behoof of our said sovereign lord the king, his
heirs, and successors; and further, our said sovereign lord the king,
of his abundant grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, doth by
these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, give and grant full
power and authority to the said Simon Sturtevant, his executors.
IQO APPENDICES
administrators, and assigns, and his and their deputy and deputies,
and every of them, with the assistance of a constable, tithing-man,
headborough, or any other ordinary officer in any city, town, place,
or places, as well within the hberties as without, within the said realm
and dominions, at all and every time and times, to have access and
entry into any house, place, and places where such metals and other
the premises shall be made and wrought or otherwise laid up con-
trary to his Majesty's grant, and there to search and provide and see
that during the period of 31 years, no manner of such or the like in-
ventions, works, or practices of making or erecting any kind or kinds
of the said metals and other the premises to be made, wrought, sold,
used, or employed wdthin the said realms contrary to the true mean-
ing of these presents, and by all lawful and convenient ways and
means, to search, see, examine, and find out all offences, during the
said time, that shall be committed contrary to any grant, hcense,
authority, and commandment, prohibition, or other things in these
presents mentioned, specified, and to seize as aforesaid such instru-
ments and other things aforesaid whatsoever made, framed, or
erected, used, exercised, or occupied contrary to the true intent of
these presents orany clause herein contained. And his Highness's will
and pleasure is, and by these presents for him, his heirs, and suc-
cessors, his Majesty doth straightly charge and command all justices
of peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and all other officers,
ministers, and subjects of his Highness, his heirs, and successors for
the time being, that they and every of them, during the said term of
31 years, or the duplicate, exempUfication, or the enrollment thereof,
shall be aiding and assisting to the said S. Sturtevant, his executors,
administrators, assigns, and deputies, and every of them, in the due

execution of all and every the said grants, authorities, command-
ments, licenses, privileges, inhibitions, prohibitions, and every other
thing in these presents mentioijed and specified, or any of them:
Provided always, that this indenture, not anything, nor anything
therein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to restrain
or hinder any person or persons from exercising any of their own in-
ventions, or arts heretofore exercised, put in use, or privileged by any

of his Majesty's letters patents heretofore made and granted to them
or any of them, but that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and
every the said person and persons to exercise, use, and put in prac-,
APPENDICES .
191
and every the said inventions heretofore practiced, put in use,

tice all
exercised, and privileged by any of the said letters patents to them

or any of them made or granted, in as ample sort and manner as they
might or may exercise, practice, or use the same, if these presents had
never been had or made, anything in these presents to the contrary
notwithstanding. In witness whereof, to the one part of the inden-
tures with the said Simon Sturtevant, our said sovereign lord, thfe
king's Majesty, hath caused the great seal of England to be put, and
to the other part thereof remaining with our said sovereign lord the
king, the saidSimon Sturtevant hath put his seal.
Given the day and year first above written.
Exam. Henry Hubbers.
The Docquet to the Patent
This is your Majesty's part of the Indentures whereby your High-

ness doth grant Hcense and privilege unto Simon Sturtevant, Gentle-
man, that he, his executors, deputies, and assigns only and none other,
shall and may, during the term of 31 years, make, practice, and put in
use, within any of your Majesty's realms and dorAinions, certain
inventions, furnaces, and instruments devised and invented by him-
self, for the working and effecting with sea- coal, pit- coal, earth-
coal, and brush fuel, divers things and works done heretofore with
wood fuel, as namely, irons, steels, leads, tins, coppers, brasses,
glass- metals, mines, tiles, bricks, pottery- ware, and such hke. And
there is reserved to your Majesty upon this grant ten parts in thirty-
three parts, to be divided of the clear yearly profits that shall be made
by the said inventions; and to the Prince, his Highness, five of these
parts, and to the Duke of York, two of those parts, and to the Lord
Viscount Rochester, one of those parts; and to the said S. Sturtevant
one or other of those parts, and to the disbursers of the money for the
trial and effecting of the said inventions fourteen such parts, and the
declaration and discovering of this invention is partly set down in a

certain schedule which is to be annexed to these indentures. And the
full and plain manifestation thereof is to be set forth in print by the
said Simon Sturtevant before the last day of Easter term next, and
containeth a proviso that this grant shall not cross any former grant
heretofore made to any others. And is done upon signification
1 92 APPENDICES
given unto Christopher Perkins, Knight, of your Majesty's good
pleasure in that behalf.
Exam. Henry Hubbers.
It is his Majesty's pleasure that these do pass by immediate warrant.

Robert Salisbury.
Received 29 of February, 161 1.
An Indenture between the king's Majesty and S. Sturtevant.
COPPIN.
[The remainder, called The Manuscript Treatise of Metallica,

is a professed explanation of the author's several inventions.]
1
DUDLEY'S PATENT FOR IRON, 1 62
James, by the grace of God, etc., to all to whom these presents shall
come, greeting.
Whereas our right trusty and well beloved Edward Lord Dudley
hath, at his great travail and industry, and after many chargeable
experiments, found out " the mistery, art, way, and means of melting
iron ore, and of making the same into cast works or bars with sea-
coals or pit-coals in furnaces with bellows, of as good condition as
hath been heretofore made of charcoal," a work and invention not
formerly performed by any within this our kingdom of England, we,
graciously favoring and willing to cherish such ingenious and pro-
fitable inventions,and finding that the working and making of the
said iron by the means aforesaid in this kingdom will not only in
itself tend to the pubhc good thereof, but also thereby the great
expense and waste of timber and wood converted into charcoal and
consumed upon iron-works will be much abated and the remnant of
wood and timber within this land will be much preserved and in-
creased, of the want whereof not only ourself in respect of provision
for our shipping and otherwise, but also our subjects for many
necessary uses are very sensible, and holding it agreeable to justice
that the authors of so laudable and useful inventions should in
some measure reap the fruits of their studies, labors, and charges.
Know ye, that we, for the causes aforesaid, and other good con-
siderations us hereunto moving, of our special grace, certain know-
ledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these pre-
sents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant unto the
said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
full and free liberty, hcense, power, and authority, that they and
every of them, byhim or themselves, or his or their deputies, factors,

servants, or workmen, at his and their charges, shall and may, at all
and every time and times, and from time to time during the term of
fourteen years next ensuing the date hereof, use, exercise, practice.
194 A PPENDICES
and put in use within this our realm of England and the dominion of
Wales, at his and their liberty and pleasure, the said mistery, art,
way, and means, of making of iron ore and of making the same into
cast works or bars with sea-coals or pit-coals in furnaces with bellows,
and also to make, erect, and set up in any place or places within the
said realm and dominion, or either of them, any furnace or furnaces,
engine or engines whatsoever, concerning the said mistery, way, art,
and means of melting of iron ore with sea-coals or pit-coals, and of
making the same into cast works or bars as aforesaid, and the same
iron so cast and made to utter and sell in gross or retail or otherwise,
to do away at his and their free wiU and pleasure, and to his and
their best commodity and profit. And further, to the end this our
pleasure may be the better effected, and that the said Lord Dudley,
his executors, administrators, and assigns, may the more fully enjoy
the benefit of this our grant, we will, and for us, our heirs, and suc-
cessors, do straightly charge, inhibit, and command, and do also, of
our more especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, for us,
our heirs, and successors, grant to the same Edward Lord Dudley,
his executors, administrators, and assigns, that no person whatsoever,
being within any our realms or dominions, nor any other person or
persons, either denizens or strangers born in any foreign realm or
country whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or condition he or they
be or shall be, other than the said Lord Dudley, his executors, ad-
ministrators, and assigns, or such as shall be by him or them set on
work or authorized, shall or may at any time or times during the said
term of fourteen years hereby granted or mentioned or intended to
be granted, practice, exercise, or put in use, or any way counterfeit
means of melting of iron ore, and of
the said mistery, art, way, or
making the same into cast works or bars, with sea-coals or pit-coals
in furnaces with bellows, or any furnace or furnaces, engine or
engines concerning the same, within this our realm of England, or
the dominion of Wales, or any place or places in them or either of
them, upon pain of forfeiture to us, our heirs, and successors, of the
ore and iron so to be melted or made contrary to the true intent and
meaning of these presents, and to have the said furnaces, engines,
and devices utterly pulled down and defaced; and also upon pain of
our high indignation and displeasure, and such further penalties,
punishments, and imprisonments as by any laws or statutes of this
APPENDICES 195
our realm can or maybe inflicted or imposed upon the offenders for
their disobedience incontemning our royal command; and also for
the better execution of this our grant, we do by these our letters
patents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant full power,
liberty, and authority to the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, that he or they, by himself or themselves,
or his or their deputies, factors, servants, or assigns, shall and may,
at all time or times convenient, and from time to time during the said
term of fourteen years, with the assistance of a constable or some
other officer, enter into all place or places convenient, where he or
they or any of them shall have any just cause to suspect any such ore,
iron, or engines, or instruments, melted or used contrary to the true
meaning hereof, to be or remain within this our realm of England,
and the dominion of Wales, or either of them, as well within Uberties,
as without, and there carefully and diligently to try and search by all
lawful ways and means for all such ore and iron furnaces, engines,
and instruments, as by any person or persons whatsoever shall, dur-
ing or within the said term before granted, be melted, made, erected,
set up, or used contrary to the tenor and true meaning of these our
letters patents, and, finding any such, to seize the ores and iron so
melted and made to the use of us, our heirs, and successors, and to
deface and pull down the said furnaces, engines, and instruments
so erected and used. And further, that he, the said Edward Lord
Dudley, his executors, administrators, and assigns, do carefully and
dihgently endeavor themselves that the intent and meaning of these
our letters patents be diligently observed, and if in the execution
thereof he or they shall find any resistance that he or they shall cer-
tify the same into the Court of Exchequer of us, our heirs, and suc-
cessors, to the end the offenders therein may receive condign punish-
ment for the same their offences; unto which Court of Exchequer
we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, give power and author-
ity upon such certificate as aforesaid, and due proof thereof, to in-
flict such punishment and imprisonment, or either of them, upon the
offenders as their offences shall deserve and to the said court shall be
thought meet. And we do also by these presents for us, our heirs, and
successors, will and command all and singular mayors, justices of
peace, bailiffs, constables, headboroughs, and other officers, minis-
ters, and subjects whatsoever of us, our heirs, and successors, that they
196 APPENDICES
and every of them, be, from time to time, during the term aforesaid,
aiding and assisting to the said Edward Lord Dudley, his executors,
administrators, deputies, assigns, servants, and workmen, in all
things in or about the accompUshment of our pleasure expressed in
these our letters patents, and in the exercise and execution of the
same or any article or clause therein contained, and that they, nor
any of them, do any way hinder, molest, interrupt, or let the said
Edward Lord Dudley, his executors, administrators, assigns, depu-
ties, servants, workmen, or chapmen, or any of them, concerning the
premises, as they tender our pleasure and will avoid the contrary at
their perils; and these presents, or the enrollment thereof shall be
their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf; provided
always, and our will and pleasure is, that this our present grant and
privilege, or anything therein contained, shall not in any wise extend
or be construed to extend to the prejudice of any other person or
persons concerning any other grant or privilege heretofore made by
us or any of our progenitors or predecessors, kings or queens of
England, now in force for melting of iron ore or making of iron or
any iron- works; provided also that if it shall appear unto us, our
heirs, or successors, or to the Privy Council of us, our heirs, or suc-
cessors, at any time hereafter, that this our present grant and privi-
lege is or shall be inconvenient to the commonwealth, that then, upon
signification of the pleasure of us, our heirs, or successors, under
our or their sign manual, signet, or privy seal, or upon signification
under the hands of any six or more of the Council of us, our heirs,
or successors, for the time being, these presents, and every grant,
clause, article, and thing therein contained shall cease, determine,
and be utterly void and of none effect, anything before in these
presents contained to the contrary notwithstanding, although ex-
press mention, &c.
In witness whereof, &c., witness ourself at Westminster, the two
and twentieth day of February.
Per breve de privato sigillo, &c.
u
PATENT TO HORSEY, RAMSEY, FOUIKE, AND DUDLEY FOR IRON, 1638
Charles, by the grace of God, King of England, France, and Ireland,

Defender of the faith, &c., to all to whom these presents shall
come, greeting.
Whereas our beloved subjects, Sir George Horsey, Knight, David
Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, Esquires, by their hum-
ble petition to us lately exhibited, have informed us that there have
been divers that have attempted to make iron within this our king-
dom of England with sea-coals, pit-coals, peat, and turf, but never
obtained unto by any, saving them, the said Sir George Horsey,
David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, who have effected
it, and with bellows, wind blast, and additaments, and by art to
perfect the same to make iron and cast works, and also into bars,
whereof they have made many trials and much good iron, and are
now assured to make the same in great quantity. And whereas we
are also by the said petition further informed that there is much
coals and ironstone lost and destroyed in many works of this king-
dom aforesaid by overthrowing and overrunning the same, which are
fit for the making of the said iron, and may be regained and here-
after preserved; and the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey,
Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley doubt not to discover mines royal,
and other mines holding several metals; they have, therefore,
humbly besought us to grant unto them our letters patents of privi-
lege for "the making of iron with sea- or pit-coal, peat, or turf, as
above said, and with the same to roast, melt, or refine all metals of
what nature soever," for the term of fourteen years, with the like
powers, privileges, and advantages as are usually granted in our
letters patents for mines royal; and that we will be further graciously
pleased to grant to them liberty to dig, search, and work the said
mines in any lands or grounds, giving the owners such satisfaction
as shall be adjudged by two justices of peace adjoining. In con-
198 A PPENDICES
sideration whereof, they have humbly
offered to pay into our Ex-
chequer after the first two hundred marks per annum.
years, one
Know ye, that we graciously favoring and accepting the good
endeavors of our said subjects, of our especial grace, certain know-
ledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these
and successors, do give and grant unto
presents for us, our heirs,
them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke,
and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and assigns, full,
free, and absolute hcense, power, privilege, and authority, that the
said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud
Dudley, and every of them, they and every of their executors, ad-
ministrators, and assigns, and they and every of their deputies and
substitutes, servants, agents, and workmen, and none other person
or persons whomsoever, shall and may from time to time and at all
and every time and times hereafter during the term of years here-
after mentioned, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, use,
exercise, practice, and put in use within our said kingdom of Eng-
land and Wales, according to their and every of their own way and
invention, the sole making of iron into any sort of cast works with
sea- or pit-coals, peat, or turf, and with the same to make the said
iron into plate works or bars, and likewise to refine all sorts of
metals, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, for their and
every of their best profit and advantage. Wherefore our will and
pleasure is, and we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors,
straightly charge and command, prohibit and forbid all and every
other person and persons whomsoever of what estate, degree, or
condition soever he, they, or any of them shall be, that none of them
(other than the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke,
and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, deputies, sub-
stitutes, workmen, or assigns) do or shall, during the term of years
hereinafter mentioned, directly or indirectly use or exercise the

making of iron into any sort of cast works, with sea- or pit-coals,
peat, or turf, or with the same to make the said iron into plate works
or bars, or to refine any sort of metals in our said kingdom or do-
minion, after the manner and way by them, the said Sir George
Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, or any
of them, first invented, without the special license and consent of
them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke,
APPENDICES 199
and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, first
had and obtained; to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licenses,
privileges, powers, and authorities, and other the premises before
by these presents granted or mentioned to be granted, from the date
of these presents, unto the full end and term, and for and during the
full term and time of fourteen years from thence next ensuing, and
fully to be complete and ended, yielding and paying therefor. And

the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and
Dud Dudley, for themselves, and every of them, their and every of
their executors, administrators, and assigns, and for every of them,
do hereby covenant and promise to and with us, our heirs, and
successors, by these presents, to yield and pay during the said term
unto us, our heirs, and successors, the yearly rent of one hundred
marks of good and lawful money of England, at the receipt of the
Exchequer of us, our heirs, and successors of this our kingdom of
England, at the feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the An-
nunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, by even and equal portions;
the first payment thereof to begin at the feast of St. Michael the
Archangel, which shall be in the year of our Lord God one thousand
six hundred and forty. And for the better accomplishment of the
premises aforesaid, we do by these presents give full power and
authority to them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey,
Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators,
and assigns, and every of them, with the assistance of a constable or
other officer, at all convenient time and times, to search in all place
or places, house or houses in our kingdom or dominion aforesaid,
where any just cause of suspicion shall be, for discovery of such as
shall use or exercise the making of iron into any sorts of cast works,
with sea- or pit-coals, peat, or turf, or with the same to make iron
into plate works or bars, or to refine any sort of metals, contrary
to our will and pleasure herein declared, and the true intent and
meaning of these presents, to the end the deUnquents may be dis-
covered and receive condign punishment, according to their demerits.
And we do also by these presents will, require, and command all
and singular mayors, sheriffs, justices of peace, bailiffs, constables,
headboroughs, and other officers, ministers, and subjects of us, our
heirs, and successors, of our said kingdom and dominion, whom
the same shall concern, that they and every of them be from time
200 APPENDICES
to timeduring the term aforesaid, aiding, helping, furthering, and
assisting to them, the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey,
Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, and every of them, their executors,
administrators, deputies, agents, workmen, and assigns, and every
of them, in all things in [or] about the accomplishment of our plea-
sure herein declared, and and execution of this our
in the exercise
grant; and that they nor any of them do in any wise hinder oi
interrupt them, or any of them, concerning the same as they tender
our pleasure, and will avoid the contrary at their perils, and these
presents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be their sufficient warrant
in that behalf. And further know ye, that we of our more especial
grace, certain knowledge, mere motion, do also by these presents,
for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Sir
George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley,
their executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free hberty,
license, power, privilege, and authority, at all times and from time
to time during the term of years hereafter in these presents men-

tioned, by themselves, or they or any of their deputies, servants,
or workmen, or any of them, to dig, open, search, and work, wash,
roast, and stamp, and melt all manner of ores or mines of gold, silver,
copper, lead holding silver, or mixed with silver and quicksilver, or
any of them, within our said kingdom or dominion aforesaid or any
part thereof, and for that end and purpose to drain and convey any
waters out of or to the said mines for the better working and draining
of the mines and pits, or washing of the same, and to try out and
convert the said ores, and copper, lead, into any other metal what-
soever, and to refine and extract the silver or gold therein contained,
and the said copper and lead to reduce and make into any manu-
factures whatsoever, to their, and every of their most profit and
commodity, and to set up and erect and repair any house or houses,
edifices, buildings, mills, and works, for the use and service of the
said mines and mineral works, as well within our own manors,
lordships, lands, grounds, and possessions, as also within the
grounds, lands, and possessions of every or any of our subjects, set,
lying, or being within our said kingdom and dominion, or any part
thereof, so that the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger
Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns,
shall not by color hereof search or dig, open or work for, in the said
1
APPENDICES 20
mines or ores aforesaid, within any our manors, lordships, forests,
chases, parks, or any other our lands, grounds, or possessions within
our kingdom or dominion aforesaid, or the lordships, manors, lands,
grounds, or any the possessions belonging to any our subjects within
our said kingdom or dominion, without the good will and consent of
us, our heirs, and successors, and the good will of such of the sub-
jects of us, our heirs,successors, as have power to license them
and
so to do ; and and always reserved out of these presents
also except
aU royal mines, and all other mines whatsoever, in any place or
places wheresoever within our said kingdom or dominion, by any
the grants or letters patents of us, or any of our progenitors or
predecessors, kings or queens of this our kingdom of England, to
any person or persons whomsoever formerly granted, and every of
them, with all the privileges, profits, and immunities, to them and
every of them appertaining and belonging, according to the true
intent and meaning of the same; to have and to hold the said mines
of gold and silver, copper, lead holding silver, or mixed with silver,
quicksilver, and all other metal or ores holding gold or silver, as afore-
said, and all and singular other the premises, with their and every
of their appurtenances respectively, under the said Sir George
Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their
executors, administrators, and assigns, from the date of these
presents for and during and unto the full end term of one and twenty
\sic\ years from thence next ensuing, and fully to complete and
ended, yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year. And the
Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and assigns,
and for every of them, do covenant, promise, and grant to and with
us, our heirs, and successors, to peld and pay yearly and every year,
after the first two years of the said term hereby granted shall be
expired, one full tenth part of all such silver and gold whatsoever, as
shall be had or gotten out of the said mines, the same being first
refined and reduced into their several species at the proper costs and
charges of the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger
Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns,
as aforesaid; and the same tenth part to be yearly and every year
after the said first two years, so expired as aforesaid, accounted
for upon oath thereof to be made before one or more of the barons
202 APPENDICES
of our Exchequer for the time being, at feast of St. Michael the
Archangel only, or within thirty days next after; and upon such
account, so made and declared as aforesaid, the said tenth part to
be dehvered to our use in such manner as shall be appointed by
Jhe lord treasurer or chancellor of the
Exchequer of us, our heirs,
or successors for the time being. And our will and pleasure is, and
we do hereby declare our intent and meaning to be that the said Sir
their executors, administrators, and assigns, shall make, give, and
allow reasonable recompense, satisfaction, and amends to all and
every the lords, owners, and occupiers of the lands, ground, and
soil for the damage and loss to be sustained in and upon the same
grounds, land, and soil, where any such shall happen by reason or
means of the said mines or mineral works: And in case the said
Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley,
their executors, administrators, and assigns, and the lords, owners,
and occupiers of the said lands, grounds, and soil, cannot agree
among themselves for the said damages and loss respectively afore-
said, then our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare and
appoint, that four indiiferent men of the same shire or shires in
which such loss and damages shall be suffered, or of the shire or
county next adjoining, George Horsey,
at the pleasure of the said Sir
David Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors,
administrators, and assigns, to be elected between them, whereof the
Dudley, their executors, administrators, or assigns, shall nominate
two, and the said lord, owner, or occupier of the said soil shall nom-
inate other two, shall assess and rate the recompense of or for the
same as they in their consciences shall adjudge to be reasonable
and sufficient in that behalf; and in case it shall so happen that the
said four men so indifferently elected, as aforesaid, cannot agree
in the rating and assessing of the recompense aforesaid, then the
matter shall be brought before us, our heirs, or successors, and by
us or our Privy Council to be heard, and finally determined between
them. And for the better furtherance of the same several works
respectively, we do by and suc-
these presents, for us, our heirs,
and grant unto the said Sir George Horsey, David
cessors, give
Ramsey, Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, ad-
APPENDICES 203
ministrators, and assigns, and every of them, full power, license, and
authority to take up and hire at reasonable wages and prices to be
given in that behalf in any place or places within this our realm
ofEngland and dominion of Wales, all manner of artificers, laborers,
and workmen not at that time hired or employed in any other of
our mines royal, and all manner of corn and victuals, timber, wood,
underwood, coal, turfs, peats, fuel, horses, oxen, carts, carriages,
tools,and instruments, and to have convenient ways and free pass-
ages with ingress, egress, and regress for servants, workmen, horses,
oxen, carts, and carriages, with all necessaries whatsoever, into,
through, and from all manner of grounds through which it shall
be convenient and expedient for their better ease, and the good
and benefit of the said several and respective works as aforesaid, and
shall be fit and convenient to be occupied and employed in or about
the draining all manner of grounds through which it should be con-
venient for the better ease and the good and benefit of the said several
and respective works, as aforesaid, as shall be fit and convenient to
be occupied and employed about the draining and conveying of
waters, digging, opening, washing, stamping, roasting, and melting
out the mines and ores aforesaid, paying reasonably for the same, and
upon any difference for the prices thereof, to be determined in such
sort as is in like case before in these presents limited and appointed
for recompense to be given to the lords, owners, or occupiers of the
soil, as aforesaid. And our further will and pleasure

is, and the
Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and as-
signs, and for every of them, do by these presents covenant, promise,
and agree to and with us, our heirs, and successors, that they and
every of them shall and will, every six months, after the two first
years of the said term of one and twenty \sic\ years hereby granted
shall be expired as aforesaid, bring and deliver, or cause to be
brought and delivered, into the mint of us, our heirs, and successors,
in our Tower London, or elsewhere within this our realm of
of
England, all the gold and silver which shall be found in the said
mines, or any of them, they and every of them receiving upon the
delivery thereof such price in ready money as gold and silver of the
like fineness is worth and shall be then usually given for the like.
And for the more secure and safe conveyance of the said gold and
204 APPENDICES
silver into our mint, as aforesaid, our will and pleasure is, and we
do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and
grant unto the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger
Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and
assigns, and every of them, full and free liberty, power, and authority,
at all times and from time to time during the said term hereby
granted after the first two years shall be so expired as aforesaid, to
set and stamp, or cause to be set and stamped, our arms upon all the
gold and silver to be conveyed to our mint as aforesaid, thereby to

distinguish it from other gold and silver, and to make known that
the same is especially appointed for us and for our service. And to
the intent as well the said tenth part of the said gold and silver
refined and reduced into their several species aforesaid as the said
tenth part may from time to time hereafter be to us, our heirs, and
successors, duly answered, paid, and dehvered according to the
true meaning of these presents as aforesaid, our will and pleasure is,
and the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey, Roger Foulke,
and Dud Dudley, for themselves, their executors, administrators,
and assigns, and for every of them, do covenant, promise, and agree,
to and with us, our heirs, and successors, that they, and every of
them, in the said works shall and will, once in every year, according
to the tenor and true meaning of these presents, that is to say, at the
feast of St. Michael the Archangel yearly, or within thirty days
next after the same feast, render and yield up a true and just ac-
count, upon oath, before one or more of the barons of the Exchequer
of us, our heirs, and successors, for the time being, according to the
course of the said court, of all such gold and silver as shall be then
had or gotten out of the said mines as aforesaid, and thereupon
shall and will dehver one fuU tenth part thereof, refined and reduced
into their several species as aforesaid to our use, in such manner as
by our treasurer of England, or the chancellor and under- treasurer
of our Exchequer for the time being shall be appointed in that be-
half; provided always, that if the said yearly rent or sum of one hun-
dred marks to us, our heirs, and successors, before, in, and by these
presents reserved as aforesaid, shall happen to be behind and
unpaid by the space of forty days next after either of the said feasts,
in which the same ought to be paid as aforesaid; or, if the said Sir
APPENDICES 205
or any of them, they or any of their executors, adnunistrators, or

assigns, shall not enroll or cause to be enrolled this our present
grant before the clerk of the Pipe for the time being of our kingdom
aforesaid within the space of six months after the date of these
presents, that then the said Sir George Horsey, David Ramsey,
Roger Foulke, and Dud Dudley, their executors, administrators, and
assigns, shall forfeitand pay unto us, our heirs, and successors, as
well the sum pounds of current money for every month
of twenty
in which the said rent shall happen to be behind and unpaid next
after the said forty days, as aforesaid; and also the sum of twenty
pounds in name of a pain for every six months' default of the en-
rollment of these presents before the said clerk of the Pipe as afore-
said. And lastly, if at any time during the said term of fourteen
years, it shall appear unto us, our heirs, or successors, or unto the
lords and others of our Privy Council, that this our grant concerning
the privilege aforesaid shall be inconvenient or prejudicial to the
commonwealth, then upon signification and declaration to be made
by us, our heirs, or successors, or by the lords and others of our
Privy Council, or six of them for the time being, in writing under
their hands, of such prejudice or inconvenience, these our letters
patents as to the privilege shall forthwith cease, determine, and be
utterly void and of none effect, anything in these presents contained
to the contrary thereof inany wise notwithstanding. And lastly, we
will and by these presents for us, our heirs, and successors, do grant
that these our letters patents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be
and shall be taken, adjudged, construed, and deemed to be firm,
good, effectual, and available in the law, to the intents and pur-
poses aforesaid; and that the same shall be taken, adjudged,
pleaded, and allowed most strongly against us, our heirs, and suc-
cessors, and most benignly and beneficially to and for the said Sir
their executors, administrators, and assigns, as well in any of our
courts of record as elsewhere, within this our realm of England and
domain of Wales, according to the true intent and meaning of the
same, notwithstanding the not reciting or not true or certain reciting
of the shires, counties, or any other place or places, in which the said
mines within our kingdom and dominion aforesaid are to be found;
and notwithstanding the not reciting of any proclamation or pro-
206 APPENDICES
clamations heretofore by us, or our late royal father published,
touching or concerning the premises, or any part thereof; and not-
withstanding any grant or grants heretofore made by our said late
father or the late Queen Elizabeth, or by us, or any matter or thing
whatsoever contained in the said grant or grants, or any of them;
and notwithstanding any statute or statutes, act, ordinance, pro-
vision, or restriction, or any other defect in not rightly naming the
names, kinds, quantities, or qualities of the said premises, or any
part thereof, or any other incertainty, defect, imperfection, or any
other matter or thing whatosever to the contrary hereof in any
wise notwithstanding. Although express mention, &c. In witness,
&c. Witness ourself at Westminster, the second day of May.
Per breve de private sigillo, &c.
w
PATENT TO JONES AND PALMER FOR HARD AND SOFT SOAP, 1623
James, by the grace of God, &c., to all to whom these presents

shall come, greeting.
Whereas we, by our letters patents, bearing date the tenth day of
February now last past, for the considerations therein expressed, for
us, our heirs, and successors, did give and grant unto our well be-
loved subjects Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors,
administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, Ucense, power, privi-
lege, and authority that they, the said Roger Jones and Andrew
Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and none other,
by themselves, their deputies, servants, factors, or workmen, should
or might at all and every time and times thereafter, and from time to
time, during the term of twenty and one years next ensuing the date
of the said letters patents, at their own proper costs and charges, use,
exercise, practice, and put in use within our said realms of England
and Ireland, and dominion of Wales, and our town of Berwick, at
their liberty and pleasure, the mistery, art, way, means, and trade of
" making of hard soap with the material called barilla, and without
the use of any fire in the boiling and making thereof, and also of
making of soft soap without the use of fire in the boiling thereof,"
with such privileges and clauses as in said letters patents are con-
tained and may more at large appear: And whereas since the grant-
ing of the said letters patents the said Roger Jones and Andrew
Palmer, and such others, their assistants, as by great expense and
travail have aided and assisted them in perfecting the said invention,
have found out and added to their former invention many particu-
lars conducing much to the profitableness and perfection of the
work, both in the use of native and home commodities of this king-
dom in the working and composition of the said soaps, and thereby
in sparing and saving many thousands yearly which are now ex-
pended on foreign commodities bought and brought from beyond
the seas, and employed here in the making of soap in the maimer
208 APPENDICES
now ordinarily used; and especially the said Roger Jones and An-
drew Palmer and their assistants have found out the way of making
and preparing of ashes of bean- straw and pea-straw, and of inland
kelp and English barilla, and other vegetables fit and serviceable for
the making of soap which otherwise would be of Uttle or no benefit to
the kingdom, but being thus used and employed will save the ex-
pense of many thousands yearly which are now expended on foreign
commodities to the lessening of the stock and treasure of the realms,
which in our regal prudence for the public weal of our people we are
bound to be vigilant and careful of. Forasmuch as such profitable
inventions are not at once and at the first brought to their full perfec-
tion, we hold it fit in justice and honor to give all encouragement to
such our loving subjects as shall employ their travails, industries, and
purses to the furthering of the common good, and to reward them to
the full with the fruits of their own labors; and forasmuch also as the
said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer have now approved their
inventions and skill to be such as deserveth encouragement, their
soap, made [ ] the material of our own kingdom only, being found to
be as sweet and good as the best soft soap now already made, and to
extend further in the use thereof, as they in the behalf of themselves
and their assistants have also made offer unto us to respect our own
particular profit, in such measure as that the loss we may receive in
our customs and other duties by the not importing of foreign com-
modities for the making of soap as in former times, shall by their
industries be recommended unto us, our heirs, and successors, in
certainty with good advantage; and our loving subjects, who have
long complained of the bad and stinking soap now ordinarily in use,
shall have good, sweet, and serviceable soap for their money, and yet
shall not have the price thereof raised upon them above the usual
rate of the best sweet soap now made and sold by the soap-boilers.
Know ye, that we, for the considerations aforesaid, of our especial
grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and granted,
and by these presents, for us, our heirs,and successors, do give and
grant unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer on the behalf
of themselves and their assistants, full and free Uberty, Ucense,
power, privilege, and authority that they, the said Roger Jones and
Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, by
themselves or their deputies, servants, factors, or workmen, and none
APPENDICES 209
Other, shall and may and every time and times hereafter, and
at all
from time to time during the term of twenty and one years next en-
suing the date of these presents, at their own proper costs and charges,
use, exercise, practice, and put in use, within our said realms of
England and Ireland and dominion of Wales, and our town of Ber-
wick, at their liberty and pleasure, the mistery, art, way, and means
of making of hard soap and soft soap, as well with the materials and
in such manner as in the said former letters patents are expressed, as
also of burning and preparing of bean-straw, pea-straw, kelp, fern,
and other vegetables to be found in our own dominions, into ordinary
ashes or into potashes, and with the said materials of the ashes of
bean- or pea-straw, and kelp, fern, and all other vegetables "whatso-
ever not formerly and ordinarily used or practiced within these our
realms and dominions to make soap hard or soft, at their will and
pleasure, and in such way or form as they have invented or devised;
and also of the using of the assay glass for trying of their lye and
making of hard and soft soap by their said new inventions, in the way
of making of the said soaps by sundry motions, and not boiling of the
same with the expense of much fuel, in such sort as was formerly
accustomed by such as now usually make soap in and about our city
of London and elsewhere in our said dominions; and further, to set
up in any place or places within our said realms of England and
Ireland, and dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, any house or
houses, vessels, or engines whatsoever fit and necessary for the putting
in use and practice of the said mistery, art, way, means, or trade of
making of hard and soft soap by all or any the materials aforesaid,
and by their said new inventions and motions for the making thereof
as aforesaid, and the same so made to utter and sell in gross or by
retail or otherwise to transport, and do away at their free will and
pleasure for their best commodity and profit; and to the end that
this our pleasure may be the better effected, and the said Roger
Jones and Andrew Palmer may the more fully enjoy the benefit of
this our grant, we will, and for us, our heirs, and successors, do
straightly charge, inhibit, and command, and do also of our especial
grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, for us, our heirs, and
successors, grant to the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their
executors, administrators, and assigns, that no person or persons
whatsoever bom within any our realms or dominions, nor any other
2IO APPENDICES
person or persons whatsoever, either denizens or strangers bom in
any foreign realm or country whatsoever, of what estate, degree, or
condition soever he or they be or shall be, other than the said Roger
Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and
assigns, or such as shallby them or some of them be set on work or
authorized, shall or may, at any time or times during the said term of
one and twenty years hereby granted or mentioned, or intended to be
granted, practice, use, exercise, or put in use the said mistery, art,
way, means, or trade of making the said hard or soft soaps with any
the materials aforesaid, or by using of the assay glass for trying of
their lye, or by the ways, inventions, or means hereinbefore men-
tioned, or to set up, make, or use any house or houses, vessels, engine
or engines, for or concerning the use of the said arts, misteries, or
inventions, or any of them, within our said realms of England and
Ireland and dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, or in any place
or places within our said realms or dominions, or any of them, or to
make or bum any ashes or potashes of the materials aforesaid for the
making of soap upon pain of forfeiture to us, our heirs, and successors,
of the said hard soap and soft soap or ashes so to be made contrary
to the true intent and meaning of these presents, and to have the said
assay glass or glasses for trying their lye, and the said vessels, engines,
and devices utterly pulled down and defaced, and also upon pain of
our high indignation and displeasure, and such further pains, penal-
ties, and imprisonments as by any our laws or statutes of this our
realm of England, or by our prerogative royal, can or may be in-

flicted upon the offenders for their disobedience in contemning our
royal commands in this behalf. And to the end it may the better
appear when any such soap shall be made contrary to the tme intent
and meaning of these presents and for the better execution of this our
grant, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, give
and grant full liberty, power, and authority unto the said Roger
assigns, that a stamp or stamps, seal or seals, to be engraven with a
rose and crown, shall be stamped, sealed, or marked on all the soaps
by them or any of them to be made in manner and form before de-
clared, the better to distinguish their said soap from all counterfeit
soap, either hard or soft, made or to be made by any person or per-
sons contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents or of
APPENDICES 211
the letters patents before recited, which seal or stamp so to be made

as aforesaid we do by and command be set upon
these presents will
the hard soap, and upon the firkins, barrels, and other vessels con-
taining the said soft soap so to be made, and shall not be set upon
soaps hard or soft made by any other person or persons whatsoever
contrary to the true intent of these presents, but shall be set and fixed
only upon such soap as shall be from time to time made by the said
Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators,
or assigns, according as is hereinbefore set down, and no other; and
further, we do by these presents grant that it shall and may be lawful
to and for the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their executors,
administrators, or assigns, or any of them, by himself or themselves,
or by his, their, or any of their deputies, factors, or servants, at any
time or times convenient, and from time to time during the said term
of one and twenty years, with assistance of a constable or some other
officer, to enter into all and everyplace and places, house and houses,
where they or any of them shall have any just cause to suspect any
such hard soap or soft soap, or soap- ashes, or potashes, to be made or
endeavored to be made or stamped or sealed, or to be sold or uttered
or set to sale, contrary to the true intent and meaning of these pre-
sents or of the letters patents before recited, or any vessels, engines,
or instruments to be erected, framed, or used contrary to the true
meaning hereof, to be or remain within our said realrns or dominion,
as well within hberties as without, and there carefully and diUgently
to try and search by all lawful ways and means for all such hard
soaps and soft soaps and potashes and other ashes, hereby granted,
made, or to be made as aforesaid, and for all such vessels, engines, or
instruments as by any other person or persons whatsoever shall,
during or within the term before granted, be made, erected, or set

up, or used, contrary to the true meaning of these our letters patents,
and finding any such, to seize the said hard soaps and soft soaps, and
potashes, and other ashes hereby granted so made to the use of us, our
heirs, and successors, the one half whereof we do hereby for us, our
heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Roger Jones and
Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, and to
deface and pull down the said furnaces, vessels^ engines, and instru-
ments so erected and used; to have and to hold, perceive, use, exer-
cise, and enjoy all and' singular the aforesaid hberties, privileges,
212 APPENDICES
and authorities and other the premises, unto the said Roger
grants,
assigns, immediately from and after the date of these presents, for
and during the term of twenty and one years from thence next ensu-
ing, and fully to be complete and ended. And forasmuch as the
public having an interest herein, which by the enhancing of the prices
of the commodities aforesaid may be prejudiced and damnified, our
will and pleasure is, and we do hereby straightly charge and com-
mand that they the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer, their
executors, administrators, and assigns, or any other person or per-
sons by them to be authorized for the making of the said hard soap
or soft soap, shall not, at any time during the said term of one and
twenty years, sell, or cause to be sold, the said hard soap or soft soap,
by them or any of them to be made as aforesaid, at any higher or
dearer rates and prices than hard soap and soft soap of the best sorts
and kinds were most usually sold for, within the space of seven years
now last past before the date of these presents. And further, we do
hereby charge and command all and singular justices of peace,
mayors, sheriffs, constables, headboroughs, comptrollers, customers,
searchers, waiters, and all other ofiicers and ministers to whom it
shall or may and assisting in all lawful and

appertain, to be aiding
convenient manner unto the said Roger Jones and Andrew Palmer,
their executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, in the due
execution of these our letters patents as they tender our pleasure and
will avoid our indignation and displeasure in the contrary. And
we do further hereby command that the said Roger Jones and
Andrew Palmer, their executors, administrators, and assigns, do
carefully and diligently endeavor themselves that the intent and true
meaning of these our letters patents be justly observed, and if in the
execution thereof they or any of them shall find any resistance, that
they or some of them do certify the same into the Court of Exchequer
of us, our heirs, and successors, to the end the offenders therein may
receive condign punishment for the same their offences, unto which
Court of Exchequer we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors,
give power and authority, upon such certificate made as aforesaid,
and due proof thereof made, to inflict such punishment and im-
prisonment, or either of them, upon the offenders, as their offences
shall deserve, or to the said court shall be thought meet. And lastly,
APPENDICES 213
we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, grant that these our
letters patents, or the enrollment thereof, shall be in all things firm,
good, available, and effectual in the law, according to the true mean-
ing of the same, as well in our courts as elsewhere within our said
realms and dominions, without any confirmation or further Ucense or
toleration to be in any wise procured or obtained, although express
mention, &c.
In witness whereof, &c. Witness ourself at Westminster, the
three and twentieth day of February.
PATENT TO SIR ROBERT MANSELL, FOR GLASS, 1624
James, by the grace of God, &c.

To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting.
Whereas, in and by our letters patents sealed with our great seal
of England, bearing date at Westminster, the nineteenth day of
January, in the twelfth year of our reign of England, France, and
Ireland, and of Scotland the eight and fortieth, it is (amongst other
things) mentioned that we, taking into our consideration the daily
waste and decay of timber and wood within our realms of England
and Wales and the dominions of the same, insomuch as where,
thentofore, this our kingdom was furnished and adorned with
goodly quantities of the same, not only for the navies and inhabit-
ants thereof, for their continual use and comfort, and for store and
provision against all occasions and accidents, but also to serve and
supply foreign parts with the same in great plenty, and that then of
late contrariwise the continual consumption of the same, and that
many times in superfluous and unnecessary things, did both increase
intolerably the rates and prices of timber, wood, and fuel, in an
excessive and unreasonable manner, and also threaten an utter want
and scarcity thereof, so much that then our subjects of this king-
dom of late years had been forced to use timber, firewood, and fuel
brought from foreign parts, whereby great damage in time to come
did grow to our realm and subjects of this kingdom for want of
necessary provision, as well for making and repairing of ships (be-
ing the principal defence of this our kingdom) as also for conven-
ient buildings and firewood if convenient remedy, ac-
in all places,
cording to the good poh'cy of were not in time provided. And
state,
that we were therefore moved out of our especial care of the future good
of this our kingdom, not only to make provision for the preservation
and increase of timber and wood by good laws and ordinances, but
also to embrace all profitable and beneficial devices, projects, and
inventions that might tend to the furthering thereof, so that per-
5
APPENDICES 2 1
ceiving glass-works and working of glasses with timber and wood

to be one of the greatest and chiefest means to consume and de-
stroy timber and wood. Whereas, thentofore we had given and
granted license unto Sir Jerome Bowes, Knight, within our realms
of England and Ireland to use the art and feat of making drinking-
glasses and other glasses for a certain time and term in the said
recited letters patents expressed, and thereby had prohibited all
others to make the said glasses, upon the express proviso and con-
dition that we, our heirs, and successors, might frustrate, deter-
mine, and make void the said recited letters patents of license in
such case as in the same letters patents is expressed. And that after-
wards, by our letters patents under the great seal of England, we
did also give and grant the Uke Ucense to make drinking- glasses and
other glasses unto Sir Percival Hart, Knight, and Edward Foncett,
Esquire, from the expiration or determination of the said Sir Jerome
Bowes his patent, for and during the term and space of one and twenty
years thence next ensuing. And that also by the Uke letters patents
under our great seal of England we did grant Ucense unto Edward
Salter, Esquire, to use the art of making aU manner of drinking-
glasses and other glasses and glass-works not .prohibited by the
former letters patents, as by the said several letters patents appeared.
And it is also in and by our said letters patents, bearing date the
said nineteenth day of January, in the said twelfth year of our reign
of England, mentioned that we then lately having certain notice
and perfect knowledge that the said several recited letters patents of
licenses were grown very hurtful and prejudicial unto this our realm,
there being then lately presented unto us by Thomas Percival, Es-
quire, a project of new invention for the making of all manner of
glasses with pit-coal and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor
made of timber and wood, which we had then been slow to beUeve
until, at the great charge of the said Thomas Percival, the same
was brought to perfection, as plainly appeared by manifest and

demonstrative experience in and by the several furnaces then lately
erected and built by the said first inventor, Thomas Percival, and
his partners. And it is further mentioned in and by the said letters
patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, that for-
asmuch as the use and exercise of the liberty and authority, by the
said three former recited letters patents mentioned to be granted.
6
2 1 APPENDICES
were grown hurtful and prejudicial to the commonweal, and the
prejudice of them was likely daily to increase unless some provis-
ion thereof were made, whereupon the said letters patents were
become void in law, and to be overthrown by ordinary course of
law in such cases used. We did by the same letters patents, bear-
ing date the said nineteenth day of January, express and declare
that we did not purpose to take upon us the defence or protection
of any the said letters patents, or of anything in any of them
mentioned be granted; and that such course should, from time
to
to time, be had and used against all persons that should take upon
them to use or exercise any power, privilege, or liberty, by pretext
or color of any the said letters patents, as our laws in such case
should permit and require, with this, that for the preservation of
wood and timber we did purpose to take such course for the general
restraint of our people from the making of glass with wood or timber
as should be agreeable to the good of our people and the state of the
commonwealth. And mentioned in and by our said let-
it is also
ters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, in
the said twelfth year of our reign of England, that we (for the con-
siderations therein expressed) did give and grant unto our right
trusty and right well beloved cousin, Philip Earl of Montgomery,
and to our right trusty right well beloved cousin, Thomas Vis-
and
count Andever, by the name of our trusty and well beloved sub-
jectand servant Sir Thomas Hayward, Knight, and to our trusty
and well beloved subjects and servants Sir Robert Mansell, Knight,
Sir Edward Zouch, Knight, Thomas Tracy, Knight, Thomas
Sir
Hayes, Esquire, Bevis Thelwall, Thomas Percival, and Robert
Kellaway, their deputies, and assigns, full and free license, power,
privilege, and authority, that they and every of them, their and
every of their executors, administrators, assigns-, deputies, servants,
workmen, factors, and agents, should and might, from time to time,
and at all times thereafter during the term and space of one and
twenty years next and immediately ensuing the date of the said
letters patents, at their and every of their wills and pleasures, use,
exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, mistery, and feat
of melting and making of all manner of drinking- glasses, broad
glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kind of glass,
glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass,
APPENDICES 217
of any fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever thentofore used

and thenafter to be devised or used in this our realm of England
and Wales, and the dominions thereof, or elsewhere, with sea-coal,
pit-coal, or any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood,
nor made of timber or wood, in and throughout this our realm of
England and Wales, and the dominions thereof, and within every
or any part of the same, and elsewhere within any of our kingdoms
and dominions, yielding and paying therefor yearly during the said
term and time of one and twenty years unto us, our heirs, and suc-
cessors, theannual or yearly rent, farm, or sum of one thousand
pounds of lawful money of England; and it is also mentioned in
our said letters patents, bearing date the said nineteenth day of
January, that we did thereby grant that no person or persons what-
soever, other than the said PhiUp Earl of Montgomery, Sir Thomas
Hayward, Sir Robert Mansell, Sir Edward Zouch, Sir Thomas
Tracy, Thomas Hayes, Bevis Thelwall, Thomas Percival, and
Robert Kellaway, their executors, administrators, deputies, as-
signs, agents, factors, and servants, should, at any time thereafter
during the said term of one and twenty years, import or bring into
our said realm of England and Wales, or the dominions thereof,
or to any part or parcel thereof, out of or from any realm or for-
eign part any manner or kind of glass or glasses whatsoever be-
fore in the said letters patents mentioned, of what metal, stuff, or
fashion soever they were, nor directly or indirectly buy or contract
for any kind or sort of glass made beyond the sea, or in any place
out of this realm of England and Wales, or the dominions thereof,
nor sell or utter any such, as by the said letters patents amongst
divers grants, powers, privileges, and other things therein contained
more at large appeareth.
Now, forasmuch as the said Sir Robert Mansell by agreement
and contract with the rest of the said patentees, taking upon him-
self the exercise and execution of the said letters patents of privi-
lege, was charged and burdened with the payment not only of the
said yearly rent of one thousand pounds, but with sundry other
great yearly payments unto divers others that were interested in the
said patent of privilege, all which payments did amount unto, in
the whole, the sum of two thousand and hundred pounds by
eight
the year at the least, and in respect thereof could not utter and sell
8
2 1 APPENDICES
the glasses made by virtue of the said patent of privilege for such
moderate prices as was fitting for our subjects, and in respect thereof,
and because all importation of glass made, as well in any other of
our own dominions as in the dominions of any foreign princes or
states, was by the said letters patents of privilege prohibited and
restrained, the said letters patents of privilege, bearing date the said
nineteenth day of January, did grow hurtful and prejudicial to the
commonweal, and accordingly the same were complained of in the
last convention of Pariiament as a grievance so as the said letters
patents bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, in respect
of the prejudice thereby accruing to the commonwealth are become
void in law, and to be overthrown by the ordinary course of law
in such cases used.
Know ye, that we, taking the premises into our gracious and prince-
ly consideration, insomuch as the said letters
do hereby declare that
patents bearing date the said nineteenth day of January, and other
the letters patents before mentioned and recited, did become pre-
judicial to the public, and the execution of them grievous to our
loving subjects, that we will not hereafter take upon us the defence
or protection of any the said letters patents, or of anything in any
of them mentioned to be granted. And that such course shall and
may from time to time be had and used against all persons that shall
hereafter take upon them to use or exercise any power, privilege,
or hberty, by pretext or color of any the said letters patents, as our
laws in such case shall permit or require; and yet nevertheless,
upon deliberate advice with the lords and others of our Privy Council,
and at the humble petition of the said Sir Robert Mansell, setting
forth that the making of glass of all kinds within this kingdom with
sea-coal and pit-coal was brought to a full and exact perfection for
the use and good of our kingdom with the expense of his whole for-
tune, and upon due consideration of the many and faithful services
of the said Sir Robert Mansell, and finding by the petitions and
certificates of the glass-sellers, looking-glass-makers, glaziers, and
spectacle-makers in and near our city of London, made and cer-
tified,some of them to the Commons in the last convention of Par-
liament, and the rest unto the lords commissioners by us appointed
to take consideration of the business of glass-works, that the glass
made by the said Sir Robert Mansell was perfectly good, clear.
APPENDICES 219
merchantable, or rather better glass than formerly was made with
wood, and that there was sufficient store made not only to serve
England, but also to serve other countries if need were; we are
pleased and resolved and do hold it most requisite and necessary
for thegood and benefit of this realm, that the making of glass
with sea-coal and pit-coal be continued, and that all making of
glass with wood for ever hereafter shall cease, and the privilege
for sole making thereof with sea-coal and pit-coal shall be re-
newed to the said Sir Robert Mansell, not only as a token of our
grace and favor towards him for his many and well deserving
services, but as a recompense for the great charge and expense
which for upholding and bringing of that work to full perfection
he hath disbursed, to the weakening of his estate, but yet without
any restraint of the importation of foreign glass, and without
burden of rent or otherwise which might occasion the enhancing
of prices to our subjects, whereby all just grievances shall be taken
away by our own loss of the annual rent, which upon the said for-
mer letters patents was reserved unto us. Know ye further, that
we, as well for and in consideration of the good and faithful service
done unto us by the said Sir Robert Mansell, our vice-admiral of
England, as also of the great pains, charges, hazard, disbursement,
and expense of great sums of money and o'her detriments which
the said Sir Robert Mansell hath undergone and been at, in and
about the said work of making of glass with sea-coal, and for other
good causes and considerations as hereunto moving, of our espe-
cial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and
granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do
give and grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power,
and authority, that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors,
administrators, assigns, deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and
agents, shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter
during the term of years hereafter in these presents mentioned, at
his and and every of their wills and pleasure, use, exercise,
their
practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat, and mistery of melt-
ing and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses,
window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kind of glass, glasses,
bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass of any
2 20 APPENDICES
fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever heretofore used or here-
after to be devised or used in this our realm of England and Wales,
and the dominions thereof, or elsewhere, with sea- coal, pit- coal, or of
any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor being made;
of timber or wood, in and throughout this our realm of England and
Wales, and the dominions thereof, and within every or any part of
them or any of them, and to make, erect, and set up as many furnaces,
engines, structures, and devices for that intent and purpose and in as
many places of our said realm and dominions as he or they shall think
fit, agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same; and the glass
and glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels so made to utter or

sell in gross, or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his, and their,
or any of their, free will and pleasure, to his, and their, profit and
commodity during all the said term hereinafter mentioned: And
that he, the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and
agents, having Ucense from the said Sir Robert Mansell, his exe-
cutors, administrators, or assigns, shall and may from time to time
during the said term have and enjoy the sole trade of making and
melting aU manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-
glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass, glasses, bugles,
form aforesaid, and that no other during
bottles, vials, or vessels in
the said term shall or may use or practice the art or feat of mak-
ing or melting of any glass with timber or wood, nor with pit-coal
or sea-coal, or other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of
timber or wood; to have, hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in
use the said hcense, liberty, privilege, authority, and immunity,
of and for melting and making of all and aU manner of drinking-
glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other
kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever
with sea-coal, pit-coal, and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor
made of timber or wood, in all parts and places within our said
kingdom and dominions, unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his execu-
tors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, and their, and every of
their, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, for and during the whole
term, and to the full end and determination of fifteen years next
ensuing the date of these our letters patents fully to be complete
and ended, freely and absolutely, without any rent, account, sum,
APPENDICES 221
or sums, of money, reckoning, allowance, or any other thing what-

soever, to us, our heirs, or successors, to be therefor paid, made,
given, answered, or done, in any manner of wise. And to the end
the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors and assigns, may receive,
perceive, and have, such benefit, profit, and commodity, as we intend
unto them, by this our grant, and as the perfection of so great a work
with such care and hazard deserveth, and for the better encourag-
ing of him and them to reduce the said business to a further per-
fection, we do hereby expressly declare and signify our royal plea-
sure to be, and we do strictly charge, inhibit, and command, all
and every other, our loving subjects, and all and every other per-
son and persons of what estate, degree, or condition they, or any
of them be, that they presume not nor attempt by any art, act, or
device whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to make any manner or
kind of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-
glasses, or any other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials,
or vessels whatsoever, made of glass, as aforesaid, with sea-coal,
pit-coal, orany other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of
timber or wood, at any time during the said term without the spe-
cial consent and license in writing of the said Sir Robert Mansell,
his executors, administrators, or assigns, but that the full and whole
benefit and profit of making of all and all kinds of glass and glasses
whatsoever, as aforesaid, with pit-coal, sea-coal, and other fuel,
not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood, within every
part of our said kingdom and dominions, shall be and remain dur-
ing all the said time and term to the sole and only behoof, dispo-
sition, and use of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, ad-
ministrators, deputies, and assigns, and to none other person or

persons whatsoever. And we do further by these presents straightly
charge, command, and prohibit, and do signify our royal wiU and
pleasure to be, that no person or persons whatsoever, of what estate,
degree, or condition soever they, or any of them, be, other than the
said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, and
assigns, and such as shall be Hcensed, authorized, and set on work by
him or them, or any of them, do, shall, or may, at any time hereafter,
during the term of years before mentioned, practice, erect, or set
up, by any ways or means, the said art and feat of making of any
kind of glass or glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever.
2 22 APPENDICES
or any furnace or furnaces for making thereof within our said king-
dom and dominions upon pain of our heavy displeasure and due
punishment for the contempt of our royal command in that be-
half. And we do by these presents give and grant unto the said Sir
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, de-
puties, factors,and agents, and every of them, full power, liberty,
and from time to time, and at all times during the said
authority,
term, by all lawful ways and means, to search, try, and find out
all offences and acts committed and done contrary to the true in-
tent and meaning of these our letters patents, and likewise for us,
our heirs, and successors, we do hereby of our especial grace, cer-
tain knowledge, and mere motion, give and grant unto the said Sir
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, assigns,
factors, agents, and servants, free power, liberty, license, and author-
ity to utter and sell in gross or by retail such kind of glass or glasses,
before mentioned, as shall be made by virtue of these our letters

patents. And if he or they shall have more than will serve us and
the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, that then he, and they,
and such others as shall buy the glasses made as aforesaid of him
or them or any of them, to transport and carry over into foreign
parts, so many and so much thereof as they shall think fit, paying
unto us, our heirs, and successors, the customs due to be paid for
the same, and leaving sufficient quantity for us, our heirs, and suc-
cessors, and our or their subjects at reasonable prices. And we do
further, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and grant by these
presents that our treasurer, chancellor, and barons of the Exche-
quer for the time being, or any of them, by force of this our grant,
or the enrollment thereof in our Court of Exchequer from time to
time and at all times hereafter during the said term upon the re-
quest of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administra-
tors, assigns, or agents, shall grant, make, and direct under the
seal of our said Court of Exchequer such and so many writ and writs,
close or patent, unto such mayors, bailiffs, sheriffs, customers, comp-
trollers, searchers, and other officers of us, our heirs, and successors,
in such shires, counties, cities, towns, boroughs, and other places what-
soever within our said realm of England and Wales and the dominions
thereof, as the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, or assigns,
shall at any time and from time to time require, thereby charging
APPENDICES 223
and commanding and every of them diligently and
the said officers
carefully to inquire, try, search, and find out all and every per-
son and persons as, contrary to the true intent and meaning of
these our letters patents, shall, at any time during the said term,
make, utter, or sell any such kind of glasses whatsoever hereinbe-
fore mentioned, or build, make, erect, use, or set up, or cause to
be builded, made, erected, or set up, any such furnace or furnaces,
structures, engines, or devices, for the melting or making of any the
sorts or kinds of glass or glasses before mentioned until they under-
stand the pleasure of our said treasurer, chancellor, and barons of our
said Court of Exchequer in that behalf, and further order by them
taken therein. And we do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors,
will and command the treasurer, chancellor, and barons
of the Ex-
chequer for the time being, and every of them, that they, or any
of them, upon complaint made by the said Sir Robert Mansell, his
executors, administrators, or assigns in that behalf, do all that in
justice they may, as well for the demolishing of the said furnaces,
structures, engines, and devices, set up or devised contrary to the
true intent of these presents, as for the apprehension and lawful
punishment of such as shall offend against any part of these our
letters patents. And for the better execution of this our grant, we
do hereby, for us, our heirs, and successors, give and grant full
power, license, and authority unto the said Sir Robert Mansell,
his executors, deputies, and assigns, by himself or themselves, or
his or their agents, factors, or servants, with the assistance of some
officer appointed for preservation of the peace, to enter into jany
glass-house or glass-houses, and other place or places whatsoever,
within any part of any of our kingdoms and dominions, as well
-within hberties as without, where any such furnaces, structures,
engines, or devices shall be made or set up contrary to the true
intent of these presents, or where any glasses made contrary to the
privilege hereby granted shall probably and reasonably be sus-
pected to be, and there by all lawful ways and convenient means
to try and search for all and all manner and kind of any the glass
or glasses before in these our letters patents mentioned, and glass-
works erected or made in any part of our said kingdom or domin-
and meaning
ions to be bought or sold contrary to the true intent
of these our letters patents, or to any law, proclamation, ordinance.
224 APPENDICES
or statute in that behalf made or ordained, or to be made or or-
dained, and if upon search they shall find any such glass or glasses
made, or any glass-work or furnace built or erected contrary to the
true intentand meaning of these presents, that then, with all con-
venient speed he or they do signify the same to us, our heirs, or suc-
cessors, or to the treasurer, chancellor, and barons of our Exchequer
or any of them for further order to be taken therein as shall apper-
tain: And further that he and they, and every of them, do carefully
and dihgently labor and endeavor and mean-
that the true intent
ing of these our letters patents may be and if in
truly observed;
execution thereof he or they, or any of them, shall find any resist-
ance, then to certify the same unto our said Court of Exchequer
to the end the offenders therein may receive condign and deserved
punishment for their several offences, and we do further hereby
straightly charge and command all mayors, sheriffs, justices of
peace, bailiffs, constables, offices, and ministers, and all other the
subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, to be aiding and assisting
unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators,
deputies, assigns, factors, and workmen, in all reasonable things
concerning the accomplishment of these our letters patents, and
that they or any of them do not at any time or times hinder, mo-
lest, interrupt, or disturb the execution thereof, as they tender our
heavy displeasure and will avoid our indignation. And we do Uke-
wise charge the attorney-general of us, our heirs, and successors
for the time being, to be aiding and assisting to the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in the main-
taining and upholding of this our grant and privilege, and in com-
plaining against such as shall withstand or impugn the same,
whereby they may be censured and punished according to justice;
and these our letters patents or the enrollment of them shall be
their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf; provided
always, and our will and pleasure is, that this our present grant
or anything therein contained shall not extend or be construed
to extend to debar, hinder, or let any person or persons whatsoever
to import or bring, or cause to be imported or brought into this our
realm of England and the dominion of Wales, and there to utter,
sell, and dispose of any glass or glasses of what kind or sort soever
made within our realm of Scotland or in any foreign parts beyond

APPENDICES 225
the seas, but that it shall be lawful for all person and persons to
import into, and utter, and sell within the said realm of England
and dominion of Wales, or any of them, or any part of them, any
glass or glasses whatsoever made within the said realm of Scotland,
or any foreign parts as aforesaid, anything in these presents con-
tained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding; paying never-
theless unto us, our heirs, and successors, such customs, subsidies,
impositions, and other duties as shall be due and payable for the
said glass and glasses so to be imported, at the time of the importa-
tion of the same. And lastly, we do by these presents, for us, our
heirs, and successors, of our further especial grace and favor, grant
unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, that these our letters patents or the enrollment of them
shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in all and every our courts
of justice and elsewhere to be most available for the said Sir Robert
Mansell his executors, administrators, and assigns, against us,
our heirs, and successors, notwithstanding the not describing the
certainty of the form of the furnaces, structures, engines, and de-
vices to be used for the melting and making of all manner of drink-
ing-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, or any
other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels, what-
soever, and notwithstanding the not particular naming, or mis-
naming of the kind or manner of glasses to be made by virtue of
this our grant, or the sizes or scanthng of the same, and notwith-
standing any other defects and uncertainties in the same; any
statute, law, provision, proclamation, or restraint to the contrary,
and although express mention, &c.
In witness whereof, &c.
Witness ourself at Westminster, the two and twentieth day of May.
EXTENSION OF THE PATENT TO MANSELL FOR GLASS, 1634
This indenture made the first day of March, in the tenth year
of the reign of our sovereign lord Charles, by the grace of God,
King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith, &c., between our said sovereign lord the king, of the one
part, and Sir Robert Mansell, Knight, lieutenant of the Admiralty
of England, of the other part Whereas his Majesty's late dear
:
father. King James, of happy memory, by his letters patents,

sealed with the great seal of England, bearing date at Westmin-
ster the two and twentieth day of May, in the one and twentieth
year of his reign of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scot-
land, the six and fiftieth, as well to prevent the decay and great
consumption of wood in this kingdom, occasioned in part by the
making of glass with this sort of fuel, as in consideration of the
good and done to his said late father by the
faithful service
said Sir Robert Mansell, and of the great pains, charges, hazard,
disbursement, and expense of great sums of money and other
detriment which the said Sir Robert Mansell had undergone and
been at, in and about a new invention for the making of all manner
of glasses with sea-coal and other fuel, not being timber or wood,
nor made of timber or wood, and for other good causes and con-
siderations him thereunto moving, of his special grace, certain
knowledge, and mere motion, did give and grant, for him, his heirs,
and successors, unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, and
authority that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, ad-
ministrators, assigns, deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and
agents, should and might, from time to time and at all times then-
after during the term of years in the said letters patents mentioned, at
his and and every of their wills and pleasures, use, exercise,
their
practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat, and mistery of melting
and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, win-
APPENDICES 227
dow-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass, glasses,
bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels whatsoever made of glass, of any
fashion, stuff, matter, or metal whatsoever thentofore used or
thenafter to be devised or used in the realm of England and Wales
and the dominions thereof or elsewhere, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or
any other fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor being
made of timber or wood, in and throughout the realm of England
and Wales and the dominions thereof, and within every or any
part of them or any of them, and to make, erect, and set up as
many furnaces, engines, structures^ and devices for that intent and
purpose, and in as many places of the said realm of England and
dominions thereof as he or they should think fit, agreeing with the
owners of the soil for the same, to utter or sell in gross or by retail,
or otherwise to do away at his and their, or any of their, free will
and pleasure, to his and and commodity, during the
their profit
said term by the said letters patents mentioned;and that he the said
Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, and agents, having
license from the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, adminis-
trators, or assigns, should and might, from time to time during the
term by the said letters patents granted, have and enjoy the sole
trade of making and melting of all manner of drinking-glasses,
broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds
of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or vessels in form aforesaid;
and that no other during the term by the said letters patents granted
should or might use or practice the art or feat of making or melting
of any glass with timber or wood, nor with pit-coal or sea-coal or
other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood;
to have, hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in use the said license,
liberty, privilege, authority, and immunity of and for melting and
making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-
glasses, looking-glasses, and all other kinds of glass and glasses,
bugles, bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever with sea-coal, pit-coal,
and other fuel, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or wood,
in all parts and places within the said kingdom and dominions, unto
the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, depu-
ties, and assigns, and their and every of their servants, agents,
workmen, and factors, for and during the whole term, and to the
228 A PPENDICES
full end and termination of fifteen years next ensuing the date of
the said recited letters patents, fully to be complete and ended,
freely and any rent, account, sum or sums of
absolutely, without
money, reckoning, allowance, or any other thing or things what-
soever to his Majesty's said late father, his heirs, or successors, to
be therefore paid, made, given, answered, or done in any manner
of wise, as by the said before recited letters patents, amongst divers
other grants, powers, privileges, and other things therein contained,
more at large appeareth. Now this indenture witnesseth that the
king's Majesty that now is, taking also into his consideration the
daily waste of timber or wood, notwithstanding the great providence
of his said late father for the prevention thereof, and well weighing
the dangerous consequence that may in general befall this kingdom,
and in particular to every member thereof, if all due means for the
prevention of the waste and decays of wood and timber, and for the
preservation and increase thereof be not carefully supported, held,
and maintained; and withal, his Majesty, duly considering the
benefit and comfort that ariseth to his people by the cherishing of
manufactures of all sorts amongst them, whereby great numbers
of them are set on work and maintained, and much treasure thereby
saved, kept within this kingdom which was unthriftily otherwise
spent in the maintenance of manufactures abroad, whereby strangers
in foreign parts have received employment, and his own people and
subjects at home wanted means to set them on work, and for that
the perfect and absolute art, mistery, and manufacture of making
of glass and glasses of all sorts with pit-coal and sea-coal, and of
late of looking-glass and spectacle-glass plates is estabhshed and
settled within this his Majesty's kingdom by the great care, ex-
ceeding charge, and expenses of the said Sir Robert Mansell, where-
by woods and timber heretofore greatly consumed in glass-works
will be wholly preserved from being spent or wasted thereby, and
many of his Majesty's subjects employed and set on work, especially
in the making of spectacles and in the grinding, polishing, foiling,
and casing of looking-glasses, which without the bringing in of the
manufacture of the making of those plates could not have been
estabhshed and settled in these his Majesty's dominions. And
withal duly considering that by the estabhshment of that manu-
facture sufficient quantities of good glass of all kinds and sorts
APPENDICES 229
have been made and wrought within kingdom for the use and
this
service of all his Majesty's dominions, and that at far more easy
rates and prices than the same were formerly sold, and that by the
industry and charge of the said Sir Robert Mansell; in due con-
sideration of all which, and of the many and faithful services of
him the said Sir Robert Mansell to his Majesty and his said late
father, and of the yearly rent hereafter in these presents reserved
and to be yearly paid to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors,
during the term of years hereafter in these presents expressed, and
for divers other good causes and considerations, his Majesty there-
unto moving of his especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion hath given and granted, and by these presents, for him, his
heirs, and successors, doth give and grant unto the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, full and free
liberty, license, power, privilege, and authority that he the said
Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and

his and their deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents only,
and none others, shall and may from time to time and at all times
hereafter during the term of years hereafter in these presents ex-
pressed at his and their and every of their wills and pleasures, use,
exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the said art, feat, and mistery
of melting and making of all manner of drinking-glasses, broad
glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles,
beads, otherwise known by the name of couterias or byniadoes
bottles, vials,and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and all and
every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or devised,
or hereafter to be made, used, or devised of glass, or the matter or
materials of glass, with sea-coal, pit-coal, or any other kind or sort
of fuel whatsoever, not being timber or wood, nor made of timber or
wood, kingdom of England and the dominion
within his Majesty's
of Wales and the town of Berwick, and within every or any part of
them or any of them as aforesaid, and to make, erect, and set up as
many furnaces, engines, structures, and devices, for that intent and
purpose, and in as many places of the said kingdom of England,
dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick as he or they shall think
fit (first agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same). And
the same drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-
glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes
230 APPENDICES
bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever, made of glass, and all and
every other thing and things whatsoever now made, used, or de-
vised, or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass or of the
matter or materials of glass whatsoever so made, to utter or sell in
gross or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his and
and anytheir
of their free wills and pleasures, to his and
their profit and com-
modities during the term of years hereafter mentioned, and that he,
the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, by him and themselves, and his and their deputies, servants,
workmen, and agents, having license from the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and may
from time to time during the term of years hereafter in these presents
expressed and granted, have and enjoy the said sole trades and
privilege of making and melting all manner of drinking-glasses,
broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses,
bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels
whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every thing and things
whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made,
used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass as
aforesaid, and no other person or persons whatsoever, during
that
the term of years in and by these presents hereafter granted, shall
or may use, exercise, practice, or put in use the art or feat of making
or melting of any glass, glasses, bugles, beads, looking-glasses,
spectacle-glasses, bottles, or vessels whatsoever made of glass or of
the matter or materials of glass as aforesaid. And this indenture
further witnesseth that for the causes, reasons, and considerations
in these presents before expressed, his said Majesty, our sovereign
lord the king that now is, of his further especial grace, certain
knowledge, and mere motion, hath given and granted, and by these
presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth give and grant unto
assigns, full and free liberty, license, power, privilege, and authority,
that he the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, and his and their deputies, servants, workmen, factors,
and agents only, and none others, shall and may from time to time
and at all times hereafter during the term of years hereaftei in these
presents expressed, at his and their and every of their wills and
pleasures, use, exercise, practice, set up, and put in use the art, feat,
APPENDICES 231
and mistery of melting and making, with any kind of fuel whatsoever
in the realm of Ireland and the dominions thereof, of all manner of
drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses,
spectacle-glasses, bugles, beads, otherwise known by the name of
couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever made
of glass, and of all and every other thing and things whatsoever
now made, used, or devised or hereafter to be made, used, or devised,
of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, and to make, erect,
and up as many furnaces, engines, structures, and devices for that
set
intent and purpose, and in as many places of the said realm of Ire-
land and dominions thereof as he or they shall think fit and con-
venient (agreeing with the owners of the soil for the same), and the
same drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-
bottles, vials, and vessels whatsoever, made of glass, and all and
or hereafter to be made, used, or devised of glass or of the matter
or materials of glass whatsoever so made, to utter or sell in gross
or by retail, or otherwise to do away at his and their or any of their
free wills and pleasures to his and their advantage and commodity
during the term of years hereafter mentioned, and that he, the said
Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
by him and themselves, and by his and their deputies, servants,
workmen, and agents having license from the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and may
from time to time during the term of years hereafter expressed, have
and enjoy the sole trade and privilege of melting and making of all
manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-
bottles, vials,and vessels whatsoever made of glass, and of all and
or hereafter to be made, used, or devised, of glass, or of the matter
or materials of glass, within the said realm of Ireland and the do-
minions thereof as aforesaid; and that no other person or persons
whatsoever, during the term of years hereafter mentioned, shall or
may use, exercise, practice, or put in use the art or feat of melting
or making of any glass, glasses, bugles, beads, looking-glasses,
spectacle-glasses, bottles, vessels, or other the premises in the said
232 APPENDICES
realm of Ireland or the dominions thereof as aforesaid; to have,
hold, use, exercise, practice, and put in use the said several licenses,
Uberties, privileges, authorities, and immunities of and for the sole
melting and making of all and all manner of drinking-glasses, broad
glasses, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-glasses, bugles,
beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, and vessels whatsoever
vials,
made and of all and every other thing and things what-
of glass;
soever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made, used, or
devised of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, with such
several sorts and kinds of and in such manner as in and by
fuel
these presents is and appointed in all parts and
before Umited
places within his Majesty's said realms of England and Ireland,
dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick, and in every of them, and
the uttering and selling of the same in gross or by retail or other-
wise as aforesaid, and all and singular other the premises unto
assigns, by him and themselves, or by his, their, and every of their
deputies, servants, workmen, factors, and agents, for and during
the whole term and to the fuU end and determination of one and
twenty years, to commence, begin, and to be accounted from the
end and expiration of the said term of fifteen years by the said
before recited letters patents of his said Majesty's said late father
unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, so granted as aforesaid, from
thenceforth next and immediately ensuing, fully to be complete and
ended, yielding and paying therefor yearly. And the said Sir
Robert Mansell, for himself, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, doth covenant, promise, and grant, to and with his Majesty,
his heirs, and by these presents to yield and pay unto his
successors,
said Majesty, his heirs, and successors, during the said term of one
and twenty years hereby granted, into the receipt of the Exchequer
of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors at Westminster, the annual
and yearly rent, farm, or sum of one thousand and five hundred
pounds of lawful money of England, at the feasts of St. Michael the
Archangel, and the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, or
within the space of forty days next after either of the said feasts, by
even and equal portions yearly to be paid; the first payment thereof
to be begun at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, next coming
after commencement or beginning of this his Majesty's present
APPENDICES 233
grant as aforesaid. And end the said Sir Robert Mansell, his
to the
executors, administrators, and assigns, may receive, perceive, and
have such benefit, profit, and commodity as is intended unto him and
them by this his Majesty's grant, and as the inventing and per-
fecting of so great a work undergone with such care, expense, and
hazard deserveth, his said Majesty doth hereby expressly declare and
signify his royal pleasure to be, and his said Majesty, for him, his
heirs, and successors, doth straightly charge, inhibit, and command
all and every other his Majesty's loving subjects, and all and every
other person or persons, of what estate, degree, or condition they

or any of them be, that they presume not nor attempt by any art, act,
or device whatsoever, directly or indirectly in his Majesty's said
realms of England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, and town of
Berwick, or in any the parts or places to them, either, or any of them
respectively belonging, to melt or make any manner or kind of drink-
ing-glasses, broad glass, window-glasses, looking-glasses, spectacle-
glasses, bugles, beads, couterias or byniadoes bottles, vials, or vessels
whatsoever made of glass, and of all and every other thing and things
whatsoever now made, used, or devised, or hereafter to be made,
used, or devised, of glass or of the matter or materials of glass, with
coal or any other sort of fuel whatsoever as aforesaid, during the term
of years hereby granted, without the special consent and Ucense in
writing of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators,
or assigns, but that the and whole benefit, advantage, and profit
full
of melting and making and kinds of glass and glasses

of all kind
whatsoever in his Majesty's said several realms of England and
Ireland as aforesaid shall be and remain during all the said term of
years hereby granted under the rent aforesaid to the sole and only
behoof, disposition, and use of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, and to the use of none other
person or persons whatsoever, and his said Majesty doth further
by these presents, for him, his heirs, and successors, straightly
charge, command, and prohibit, and doth signify his royal will and
pleasure to be, that no person or persons whatsoever, of what estate,
degree, or condition soever they be or any of them be, other than the
said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies,
and assigns, and such as shall be licensed, authorized, and set on
work by him or them or some of them, do, shall, or may at any time
234 APPENDICES
hereafter during the term of years hereinbefore granted, practice,
erect, or set up by any ways or means the said art and feat of melting
or making any kind of glass or glasses, bugles, beads, bottles, vials,
or vessels whatsoever made of glass as aforesaid, or any furnace or
furnaces for making thereof, within his Majesty's said realms of
England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, town of Berwick, or in
any parts or places to them or either of them belonging as aforesaid,
upon pain of his Majesty's heavy displeasure and due and condign
punishment for the contempt of his royal commandment in that
behalf. And his said Majesty doth by these presents, for him, his
heirs, and successors, give and grant unto the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, deputies, factors,
and agents, and every of them, full power, Uberty, and authority,
from time to time and at all times during the said term hereby
granted, by all lawful ways and means to search, try, and find out all
offences and acts committed and done contrary to the true intent
and meaning of these his Majesty's letters patents, and likewise
his Majesty, for him, his heirs, and successors, doth hereby, of his
especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, give and
grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administra-
tors, deputies, assigns, factors, agents, and servants, free power,
liberty, hcense, and authority to utter and sell in gross or by retail
such kind of glass or glasses before mentioned as shall be made by

virtue of these his Majesty's letters patents, and if he or they shall
have more than will furnish and serve his Majesty and the subjects
of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, of the said several realms
of England and Ireland as aforesaid, that then he and they and such
others as shall buy, acquire, or obtain the said glasses so made as
aforesaid of him, or them, or any of them, may at their pleasure
transport and carry over into foreign parts beyond the seas, so
many and so much thereof as he or they shall think fit; paying
unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, the customs and other
duties due to be paid for the same, and leaving a sufficient quantity
for the use and service of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and
of his and their subjects of the said several realms and the dominions
thereof at moderate rates and prices during the said term; and
further for the considerations aforesaid his Majesty, of his especial
grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, doth hereby, for him,
APPENDICES 235
his heirs, and successors, further grant unto the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, deputies, and assigns, full
power, license, and authority that he and they shall or may law-
fully, from time to time during the said term before granted, im-
port and bring, or cause to be imported and brought, into his Maj-
esty's said realms of England and Ireland and the dominions
thereof, all or any sorts or kinds of Venice and Morana glasses
whatsoever, and the same so imported as aforesaid to utter or sell
in gross or by retail or otherwise, to do away at his and their wills
and pleasures, and for his and their benefit and advantage, without
paying or yielding to his said Majesty, his heirs, or successors, any
account, rent, or recompense of or for the same, other than the cus-
toms and other duties due for the same, and other than the yearly
rent before herein reserved, and yearly to be paid to his said Majesty,
his heirs, and successors as aforesaid, and the said Sir Robert Man-
sell, for him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, doth cove-
nant, promise, and grant to and with our said sovereign lord the
king, his heirs, and successors, by these presents, that he the said
Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns,
shall and will during the said term of years hereinbefore granted
as aforesaid, well and sufficiently supply and furnish his Majesty's
said several realms and kingdoms of England and Ireland and the
subjects thereof, from time to time with aU sorts and kinds of good
glass and glasses whatsoever at moderate rates or prices to be
required, paid, and taken for the same, and his said Majesty, for
him, his heirs, and successors, doth further grant to the said Sir-
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and
doth hereby also straightly charge, require, and prohibit all and all
manner of person and persons whatsoever other than the said Sir
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that they
or any of them during the said term of one and twenty years hereby
granted, do not attempt or presume to import or bring, or cause
to be imported or brought, into these his Majesty's realms of Eng-
land and Ireland, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick, or any of
them, from Venice or Morana, or from any other foreign part or
parts whatsoever (Scotland only excepted), any manner or kind
of glass or glasses whatsoever as aforesaid, nor shall directly or in-
directly buy or contract for, sell, utter, or put to sale, any such
236 APPENDICES
kinds or sorts of glass so made or imported, or to be made or im-
ported, contrary to the tenor and true meaning of these his Majesty's
letters patents, and the several grants, Ucenses, and privileges to
assigns therein granted, upon pain of his Majesty's high displeasure
and of such punishments and penalties as by the laws and statutes
of this realm or otherwise shall or may be inflicted on such deUn-
quents according to the merits of such their contempts and offences
in that behalf. And his said Majesty also, for him, his heirs, and
successors, doth grant and covenant by these presents to and with
the said Sir Robert ManseU, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, that he, his heirs, or successors, will not, at any time during
the said term of one and twenty years, give or grant to any person
or persons whatsoever, other than to the said Sir Robert Mansell,
his executors, administrators, and any hcense or toleration
assigns,
to import or bring into his said realms of England and Ireland, or
any of them, any sorts or kinds of glass or glasses whatsoever, from
any foreign part or parts whatsoever (Scotland only excepted), and
his Majesty doth further give and grant unto the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to his and
their deputies, factors, and agents, and every of them, full power,
liberty, and lawful authority, from time to time and at all times
during the said time and term of one and twenty years, by all law-
ful ways and means to search, try, and find out all offences and
acts from time to time committed, perpetrated, or done, or to be
committed, perpetrated, or done, contrary to the true intent and
meaning of these presents, and his Majesty doth further, for him, his
heirs, and successors, will and grant that the several treasurers, vice-
treasurers, chancellors, barons, and other the officers and ministers
of his Highness's exchequers of his several realms of England and
Ireland, for the time being respectively, by force of these presents,
or the enrollment, constat, or exempUfication thereof, from time to
time, and at all times hereafter during the said term of years hereby
granted, upon the request of the said Sir Robert Mansell, his exe-
cutors, administrators, or assigns, or his and their deputies, serv-
ants, factors, or agents, shall grant forth, make, and direct under the
several and respective seals of the said several courts of exchequers
or other courts of his said several realms or kingdoms of England
APPENDICES 237
and Ireland and so many writ and
as aforesaid respectively, such
writs, close or patent, and other processes whatsoever, unto such
mayors, bailiffs, sheriffs, customers, comptrollers, searchers, and
other officers of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, in such
shires, counties, cities, towns, boroughs, and other places whatso-
ever within the said several realms of England and Ireland re-
spectively, and the dominions thereof, as the said Sir Robert Man-
sell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or his or their deputies,
any time and from time to time
servants, agents, or factors shall at
require, during the said term of years hereby granted or meant or
intended to be granted as aforesaid, thereby charging and com-
manding the said officers and every of them in their several offices
and places respectively, diligently, faithfully,and carefully to in-
quire, try, search, and find out alland every such person and per-
sons as contrary to the true intent and meaning of these his Majesty's
letters patents shall at any time during the said term of years hereby
granted, make,set, utter, import, or bring in as aforesaid any such
kind of glass or glasses whatsoever hereinbefore mentioned, or

build, make, be builded, made,
use, erect, or set up, or cause to
any such furnaces, structures, engines, or devices
erected, or set up,
for the melting or making of any the sorts or kinds of glass or
glasses before mentioned, and them to apprehend and put in safe
custody until they understand the pleasures of his Majesty's said
treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, and barons of his said courts
of exchequers of his said several kingdoms or realms of England and
Ireland respectively, to whom it shall or may appertain in that behalf,
and by them be taken therein, and his Majesty doth
further order
hereby, for himself, his heirs, and successors, will and command
the treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, and barons of the said
exchequers, and all other the officers and ministers of his said several
realms or kingdoms of England and Ireland respectively for the
time being, and every of them, that they, every, or any of them, upon
complaint made by the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors,
administrators, or assigns, or his or their deputies, servants, factors,
or agents in that behalf, do perform and execute all that in justice
they may, as well for the demolishing and destroying of the said
furnaces, structures, engines, and devices set up or devised contrary
to the true intent of these presents as for the lawful punishment of
238 APPENDICES
all such as shall any ways offend against any grant, license, power,
privilege, inhibition, matter, or thing whatsoever in these his Ma-
jesty's letters patents mentioned or contained, and for the confisca-
tion and forfeiture of all sorts and kinds of glass and glasses what-
soever that shall be made, shipped, imported, or brought in, or other-
wise vented, uttered, or sold contrary to the true intent and meaning
of these presents as by his Majesty's said courts of exchequers and
other his said officers respectively shall be thought meet. And
for the better execution of this his Majesty's grant and the several
licenses, powers, privileges, matters, and things therein contained,
his said Majesty doth hereby, for him, his heirs, and successors,
give and grant full power, license, and authority unto the said Sir
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, by
him and themselves or by his or their deputies, agents, factors, or
servants, with the assistance of some officers appointed for the pre-
servation of the peace or other lawful officer of his said several
realms and kingdoms respectively, to enter into any ship, bottom,
vessel, boat, houses, cellars, soUers, warehouses, shops, rooms,
glass-house or glass-houses, and other place or places whatsoever
within any part of his Majesty's said several kingdoms and do-
minions respectively as aforesaid, as well within liberties as with-
out, where any such furnaces, structures, engines, or devices shall

be erected, made, or set up contrary to the true meaning of these
presents, or where any sorts of glass made or imported contrary to
the licenses and privileges hereby granted or intended to be granted
as aforesaid, shall probably or reasonably be suspected to be, and
there by all lawful ways and convenient means to try and search
for all and all manner and kind of any the glass and glasses before
in these his Majesty's letters patents mentioned, and glass-works
erected or made in any part of his said several kingdoms to be made,
bought, sold, imported, or brought in contrary to the true intent
and meaning of these presents, or to any law, proclamation, ordin-
ance, restraint, or inhibition in that behalf made or ordained, or to
be made or ordained; and if upon inquiry or search they shall
find any such glass or glasses made, imported, shipped, or brought
in, or any glass-work or works, furnace or furnaces, built or erected
contrary to the true intent and meaning of these presents, that then
and in every such case it shall and may be lawful to and for the said
APPENDICES 239
Sir Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and
his and their deputies, servants, and agents, with an officer sworn for
the preservation of his Majesty's peace, or other lawful officer, to take
and seize the same and with all convenient speed to signify the same
seizure and seizures to his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, or to
the treasurers, vice-treasurers, chancellors, or barons of his said
several exchequers, or other the oflScers of his said several offices of
his said several realms and kingdoms of England and Ireland, or either
of them, to whom in that behalf it shall or may appertain, for such
further order and redress to be taken therein as shall appertain
and to them shall seem fit, that the true intent and meaning of these
his Majesty's letters patents be duly and fully obeyed, observed, and
kept accordingly; and if in the execution thereof, or of any hcense,
privilege, power, or inhibition therein contained, the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or his or their
deputies, agents, or factors, or any of them, shall find any opposi-
tion or resistance, that then he or they do certify the same unto
his Majesty's said Court of Exchequer, and other the said officers
and ministers of his said several realms and kingdoms respectively,
to the end the offenders therein may receive condign and deserved
punishment for their several offences, and his Majesty doth further
hereby straightly charge and command all mayors, sheriffs, justices
of peace, bailiffs, customers, searchers, constables, officers, and
ministers, and all other the subjects of his Majesty, his heirs, and
successors, of his said several kingdoms and realms of England and
Ireland respectively, to be aiding and assisting from time to time
during the term of years hereinbefore mentioned to the said Sir
Robert Mansell, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to
his and their deputies, factors, servants, and agents in the full and
due accompHshment, upholding, and maintaining of these his
Majesty's letters patents, grants, and privileges, and of all matters
and things therein contained, and in complaining, suing, impleading,
and prosecuting against such as shall withstand or impugn the
same, whereby they may be censured and punished according to
justice. And these presents or the enrollment thereof shall be his
and their sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf. And
lastly his Majesty by these presents, for him, his heirs, and suc-
cessors, of his further especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere
240 APPENDICES
motion, doth grant unto the said Sir Robert Mansell, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, that these presents or the enrollment
thereof shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in all and every
his Highness's courts of justice and elsewhere to be most favorable,
effectual, and and for the said Sir Robert Mansell, his
available to
executors, administrators, and assigns, and most strongly against
his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, notwithstanding the not
describing the certainty of the form of the furnaces, structures,
engines, and devices to be used for the melting and making of all
manner of drinking-glasses, broad glasses, window-glasses, looking-
glasses, or any other kind of glass, glasses, bugles, bottles, vials, or
vessels whatsoever, and notwithstanding the not particular naming
or misnaming of the kind, form, or manner of glasses to be made or
imported by virtue of this his Majesty's grant, or the sizes or scant-
Ungs of the same, and notwithstanding the misreciting and not true
and perfect reciting of the said grant or grants of Hcense and privilege
heretofore made to the said Sir Robert Mansell by his Majesty's
said late dear father touching the melting and making of the said
glass and glasses, and the several sorts and kinds thereof therein
mentioned or expressed, and notwithstanding any other misrecital
or non-recital or any other defects or incertainties in these presents,
or any statute, law, provision, proclamation, act, ordinance, or
restraint before had, made, or provided, or any other thing, matter,
or clause to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always, that if
it happen the said yearly rent or sum of one thousand five

shall
hundred pounds hereby reserved and yearly payable to his said
Majesty, his heirs, and successors as aforesaid, or any part or parcel
thereof, shall be behind and unpaid by the space of fifty days next
after either of the said feasts in which the same ought to be paid as
aforesaid, that then his Majesty's grants or letters patents, and
every clause, article, power, and privilege therein contained, shall
cease, determine, and be utterly void, to all intents, constructions,
and purposes whatsoever, anything in these presents contained to the
contrary notwithstanding. Provided also that if the said Sir Robert
Mansell, his executors, administrators, or assigns, shall not enroll
these his Majesty's letters patents before the clerk of the Pipe for
the time being in the Exchequer of England within six months
after the date thereof, then the said Sir Robert Mansell, his execu-
APPENDICES 241
tors, administrators, or assigns, shall forfeit and pay to his Majesty,

his heirs, and successors (nomine poenae),the sum of fifty pounds
of lawful money of England, and so for every six months after, in
which the same shall not be enrolled as aforesaid, to forfeit and pay
to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, the Uke sum of fifty pounds
(nomine poenae) until the said letters patents shall be enrolled ac-
cording to the intent and meaning of these presents. In witness
whereof to the one part of these presents, remaining with the said
Sir Robert Mansell, his said Majesty hath caused the great seal
of England to be put, and to the other part thereof, remaining with
Robert Mansell hath put to his hand and
his Majesty, the said Sir
seal theday and year above written, anno Domini, 1634.
Et memorandum quod secundo die Marcii anno regni regis
CaroU decimo praefatus Robertus Mansellus, miles, venit coram
dicto domino rege in Cancellaria sua, et recognovit indenturam
praedictam ac omnia et singula in eadem contenta et specificata in
forma suprascripta, &c.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MANUSCRIPT SOURCES
In the British Mtisetjm.
Landsdowne MSS. These are particularly important because they are
made up of Burghley and Caesar papers. Burghley collected the most
largely
important correspondence relating to industries in Elizabeth's reign, and Csesar

did the same in the reign of James I.
Titus MSS. Cotton Collection.
Vespasian MSS. Cotton Collection.

Harleian MSS.
Egerton MSS.
Sloane MSS.
Additional MSS.
For all the British Museum manuscripts there are published catalogues which
indicate the subject-matter of each document. The "Class Catalogue" in the
Manuscript Reading- Room of the Museum is a convenient and useful, though

incomplete guide.
In the Peivy Counch, Office.

Council Registers. One of the best sources of information. The Registers
have been published only as far as the year 1598, and further publication has
unfortunately been suspended. The published Registers, under the title of Acts
of the Privy Council, practically cover Ehzabeth's reign.
In the Library of Lincoln's Inn.

Coxa MSS.
In the London Guildhall Records Room.

Repertories of the Board of Aldermen.
Remembrancia. Correspondence between the national and city authorities.
The Analytical Index published in 1878 gives the letters in condensed form.
At the Public Record Office.

State Papers, Domestic. The series covering the period from 1560 to 1640
are: Elizabeth, James I, Addenda, and Charles I. There are published calen-
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
dars for all these series, but only brief ones for the reign of James I and the early
part of the reign of Elizabeth.

Patent Rolls. The full text of all important grants. The manuscript calen-
dars are a necessary guide. The Patent Office Specifications publish the full
text of nearly all the early patents for invention from the year 161 7.
Signet Office Docquet Books. The most convenient source of information as
to patent grants. The important particulars of the grants are here given. In
these books were copied the memoranda at the foot of the "King's Bill." The
index volumes are valueless.
Grant Books.
Sign Manual.
Warrant Books.
State Paper Docquets. Very brief memoranda of grants.
Exchequer Decrees and Orders.
Depositions taken by Special Commission, King's Remembrancer of the
Exchequer.
Audit Office Declared Accounts.
The Historical Manuscripts Commission has published a calendar of the

Salisbury Papers preserved at Hatfield House. It has also published a calendar
of the manuscripts preserved in the Library of the House of Lords.
CONTEMPORARY PRINTED LITERATURE

Collections of Proclamations in the British Museum, the Library of the
Society of Antiquaries, and the Record Office.
Collections of Broadsides in the Library of the Society of Antiquaries.
1549. Hales, John. Discourse of the Commonwealth.
1559. Agricola, George. De re Metallica.
1596. Harington, Sir John. Metamorphosis of Ajax.

1607. Norden, J. Surveyor's Dialogue.
1616. James I. Book of Bounty.
1612. Sturtevant, S. Metallica.
1613. Rolvenson, J. Metallica.
1615. Stow, J. Annals of England, Edm. Howes, editor.

1620-21. Petitions and Parliamentary Matters, London Guildhall Tracts, Beta.
1622. Misselden, E. Free Trade, or the Means to make Trade flourish.
1622. Malynes, Gerard. Lex Mercatoria, or Ancient Law Merchant.

1638-75. Petitions and Remonstrances. In George III Library, British
Museum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
1640-60. King's Pamphlets, in the British Museum.
1641. Naunton, Sir Robert. Fragmenta Regalia.
1641. Robinson, Henry. England's Safety in Trade's Increase.
1641. Dayies, J. (Citizen and Fishmonger.) Answer to Printed Papers by the
late Patentees of Salt in their pretended Defence against Free Trade.
1641. . . . Hyde, E. (Earl of Clarendon). History of the Rebellion and Civil
Wars in England, ist ed. 1702. . .
1641. Anon. A True Remonstrance of the State of the Salt Business.

1641. Anon. Short and True Relation concerning the Soap Business.
1642. . . . Bushell, Tracts. This volume in the British Museum is a series of
printed memorials addressed to the crown and Parliament. If contains
The Just and True Remonstrance of his Majesty's Mines Royal in the
Principality of Wales, 1642; The Case of Thomas Bushell truly stated,
1649; Mr. Bushell's Abridgment of Lord Chancellor Bacon's Philosophical

Theory of Mineral Prosecutions, 1659; and some supplementary notes
added at the Restoration.
1645. Howell, J. Epistolae Ho-Elianae.
1649. Gray, Wm. Chorographia.

1650. Lilbume, J.,et al. The Soapmakers' Complaint for the Loss of their Trade.
1651. Welldon, Sir A. The Court of King Charles.
1651. Anon. Abstract or Brief Declaration of his Majesty's Revenue. 1619-20.

(Somers, Tracts, 2d ed. 1809, ii, pp. 364-400.)
1656. S— , W— (Gent.). Golden Fleece.
1662. Merret, C, ed. A. Neri's Art of Glass.
1663. Worcester, Marquis of. A Century of Inventions.

1665. Dudley, Dud. Metallum Martis.
1670. Pettus, Sir J. Fodinae Regales.
1677. Powle, Account of the Iron-Works in the Forest of Dean. (Phil. Trans.)
1679. (Carew, T.) Brief Narrative of the several remarkable Cases of Sir
William Courten and Sir Paul Pindar.
1681. Carew, T. Hinc illae Lachrymae, or the Life and Death of Sir William
Courten and Sir Paul Pindar.
1681. Yarranton, A. England's Improvement by Land and Sea.
1681. . . Houghton, J., ed. Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry
and Trade. (2d series, 1693. . . ).
1713. M. Opera Mineralia Explicata.

Stringer,
Based upon personal knowledge, and records no longer extant.

248 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Statutes of the Realm.
Husband, E. Orders and Ordinances, 1642-46. 1646.

D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, Parliaments of Elizabeth. 1682.
Townshend, H. Historical Collection 0} the last four Parliaments of EKzabeth.
1680.
Parliamentary History. 1806. . . .
Proceedings and Debates, 1620-21. 2 vols. 1766.

Rushworth, J. Historical Collection of Private Passages of State, of weighty
Matters in Law, remarkable Proceedings in five Parliaments, etc., 1618-49.
1659-1701.
Journals of the House of Commons.
Journals of the House of Lords.
LEGAL REPORTS
Coke, Sir Edward. Reports, ist English edition, 1777, 13 parts, 7 volumes.
Moore, Sir Francis. Cases Collect. &i" Report. — per Sir F. Moore. — Ore prim-
ierent imprime &= publie per I' original remainant en les mains de Sir G. Palmer.
ist ed. 1663, 2d ed. 1688. The Exact Abridgment in English, by W. Hughes,
1665, is of no value.
Noy, William. Reports of Cases taken in the Time of Queen Elizabeth, King
James, and King Charles. 1656.
Hardres, Sir Thomas. Reports of Cases adjudged in the Court of Exchequer in
the Years 1655-60. 1693.
SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
Brand, John. History of Newcastle. 1789.
Cunningham, W. Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times.
3d ed. 1903.
pp. 53-85 are devoted to "The Policy of Burleigh" (contributed to the work
by Mrs. LiUan Tomn Knowles), and pp. 285-331 to "Regulation of Social and
Industrial Conditions " under the Stuarts. At the end of the work there is a
useful bibliography. The author sympathizes with the monopoly policy, with
a few exceptions.
Dictionary of National Biography. 1885. . .
Various articles under the names of patentees give useful hints as to sources
of information.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 249
Durham, F. H. Relation of the Crown to Trade under James I. Royal Historical
Society Transactions, 1899.
Galloway, R. L. Annals of Coal Mining and the Coal Trade. 2d ed. 1898.
Gardiner, S. R. History of England, 1603-42. 10 vols. 1893.
Ch. xxxiii in vol. iv deals with the monopoly agitation of 1621, based on an
article in Archaeologia.
Gardiner, S. R. Four Letters of Lord Bacon to Christian IV. Archaeologia, Feb-

ruary, 1867.
Contains a long and somewhat labored defence of Bacon's attitude toward

the monopolies.
Hallen, C. Early English Glassmakers. Scottish Antiquary, April, 1893.
Hartshome, A. Old English Glasses. 1897.

Hewins, W. A. S. English Trade and Finance in the Seventeenth Century. 1892.
Monopolies are considered in the introduction, and in chapters i and ii. Ch. ii
deals chiefly with the iron industry. The author takes an unfavorable view of
the patents.
Hulme, E. W. History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and Common
Law. Law Quarterly Review, April, 1896, January, 1900.
A convenient descriptive account of patents for invention, 1560-1600.

Hulme, E. W. English Glass-making in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Antiquary, November, 1894, December, 1894, March, 1895, April, 1895.
Very good articles with many helpful citations.
Meikleham, R. S. The Progress of Machinery and Manufactures in Great Britain

exhibited in chronological notices of some Inventions and Improvements from
the earliest Times to the Present, pp. 1-234 in vol. v of Weale's Quarterly
Papers on Engineering. 1846.

This, the longest account of the early patents hitherto published, is more
noteworthy for its rarity than for its scholarly merits. It is professedly only
a compilation of extracts from original sources, but the editorial work is
poor.
Ordish, T. F. Early English Inventions, 1603-20. Antiquary, July, August, and

September, 1885.
Not altogether satisfactory. The author frequently cites the "Pells Privy Seal
Books,'' but he apparently has in mind the Signet Offices Docquet Books.
Page, Wm. Letters of Denizations and Acts of Naturalization, 1509-1603.
Huguenot Society PubUcations (vol. viii), 1893.
pp. xlii-U deal with Foreign Influence on Trades.

Prothero, G. W. Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 1558-1625. 2ded. 1898.
Strype's Stow's Survey of London and Westminster. 2 vols. 1720.
Strype's additions are the most useful part of the work. They consist of nearly
250 BIBLIOGRAPHY
verbatim copies from manuscripts, chiefly the Lansdowne volumes, which were
at one time in Strype's possession.
Unwin, George. Industrial Organization of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries. 1904. The best discussion of the industrial history of the period
that has yet been published; unfavorable to monopolies.
Nearly every text-book on English Patent Law gives an introductory historical

review of the monopolies before the statute of 1624, but these have little value
as history. For the historical student the most helpful book on English Patent
Law is by J. W. Gordon, Monopolies by, Patents, 1897, chiefly useful for its ap-
pended matter. For a good classified list of books on all phases of the subject of
patents for inventions, consult Subject List of Books on Industrial Property in
the Library of the Patent Office, London, 1900.
INDEX
INDEX
Abuses, 8, i6, 25, J2, 33, 45, 65, 113, 156, 157, Bangor, Bishop of, 160.
161, 162, 163, i56, 167, 173. Bankrupts, 86, 171, 174.
Accountants, accounts, accounting, 51, 95, 96, Barilla, 207, 208.
116, 201. Barker, Robt., 159.
Acontio, Giacopo, 7, 8. Bassaney, Arthur, 149, 152.
Act of monopolies. See Statute of monopolies. Bath, 57.
Administration, 14, 30, 41, 122, 128, 131. Battery works. See Mineral and Battery
Adoption of patent policy, 6, 7. works.
Adventurers. See Undertakers. Beale, Robt., 143.
Agents, 226, 229, 230, 234, 236, 238, 239. Beaupr^, 68.
Agricola, Geo., 63, 246. Becku, 67.
Alchemy, 82. Bedingfield, 17.
Ale-houses, 31, 172, 174. Beer, 142, 143, 144, 147, 151, 152.
Alexander, Robt., 143, 145, 149, 152. Bellingham, Henry, 144.
Aliens, 39, 51, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 194, 210. Benefit of penal laws and of forfeiture, 12, 13,
Allen (Darcy vs.), 22-24. •3S. 136. 148, i49> '64-
Allin, Wm., 152. Bennett, Wm., 13.
Alnage, 9, 27. Berne, 3.
Alum, 8, 31, 32, 42, 82-101, 140. Berwick, 209, 229, 232-235.
Alum Bay, 82. Bill against monopolies, 1601, 20, 21, 155.
Anise-seed, 143, 145, 149, 150, 152. Bineon, Roger, 13, 146.
Annesley, Bryan, 143, 145, 151, 152. Boston, 142.
Annuities, annuitors, 84-89, 93, 96, 98, 178. Bottles (stone). See Pots.
Andever, Thos., 216. Bounty, Book of, 28, 34.
Anton, 15. Bourchier, Sir Jno., 83-97, H9.
Apprentices, apprenticeship, 36, 40, 64, 79, 121, Bowes, Sir Jerome, 17, 70, 71, 72, 80, 143, 145,
125, 127, 167. 148, 152, 215.
Aqua vitae, aqua composita, beer vinegar, 143, Bowlder, Rich., 86.
149, 150, 151, 152. Brand, John, 78, 248.
Arber, Wm., 149. Brass, 60, 177, 179, 181, 182, 191.
Arms, armorers, 5, 167. Brewers, brewing, 172, 174, 179.
Artisans. See Workmen. Bribery, 15, 64, 93, 124, 170.
Arundell and Surrey, Thos., Earl of, earl mar- Bricks, brick-makers, 82, 88, 172, 179,182, 191.
shal, 169. Bridport, 6.
Ashley, Jno., 146, 148. Briet, 67.

Assay, assaying, 55, 120, 123, 210. Brigham, 145.
Assessment, 51, 56. Bristol, 57, 120, 125.
Assistance, letters of, 156, 158, 172, 173, 174, British Isles, 80.
175- Brode, Jno., 59.

Assessment, 51, 56. Brooke, Sir Basil, 29.
Assurance (marine), policies of, 146. Brooke, Sir Jno., 91.
Astell, 108. Brokerage, brokers, 95, 171, 173.
Atherton, 83. Brushes, 150, 157.
Aubrey, 68. Buck, Jeremy, no.
Buckingham, Geo., Duke of, lord high admiral,
Bacon, Francis, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 37, 3'' 3^. 33. 93' 169.
105, 154. Bulmer, Bevis, 63, 142, 147.
Baker, Abraham, 141. Bungars, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 80.
Balance of trade, 119. Burghley, Lord, Wm. Cecil, lord treasurer,
Ballasting, 144, 168. 13, 18, 55, 82, 245, 248.
254 INDEX
Bury St. Edmunds, 6. Coinage, private, 97.
Bushell, Thos., 52, 53, 54, 55, 63, 247. Coke, Sir Edw., lord chief justice, 23, 24, 29,
76, 248.
Caesar, Sir J., z6, 86, 89, loi, 245. Coke, coking process, 54, in.
Calamine stone, 55, 59, 150. Colepepper, 45.
Calf-skins, 10, 141, 147, 152, 157. College of Physicians, 97.
"Calling in" of patents, 46, 78, 116, 117. Comb-makers, 172, 175.
Cancellation, 21, 29, 99, 100. Commercial monopolies, 46.
Cambridge, 117. Commercial classes, 19.
Canterbury, 39. Commissions, commissioners, 43, 50, 56, 57,
Capital, capitalists, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 55, 77, 84. 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, loi, 121, 122,
80, 81, 86, 97, 103, 108, 129, 131. 127, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175.
Cardan, 4. Committee of Grievances. See Grievances.
Cardiganshire, 52, 53, 54. Common law. See Law.
Cards, playing-, cardmakers, 8, 9, 22, 23, 24, Common Pleas, 26, 137, 138, 154.
30. 39. 4^. 149. 15°. 151. '5^' 157, ifi?. I7»- Commons, House of, 6, 19-21, 25, 26, 28, 31,
Card-wire. &ee Wire and Wool-cards. 32, 33, 160, 161, 218.
Carew, Geo., 146. Commonwealth, 79.
Carew, T., 97, 247. Companies. See Corporations.
Carleton, 91, 95, loi. Compensation, 16, 76.
Carnithen, Rich., 147. Complaints, 20, 30, 77, 168.
Carre, Wm., 67, 142, 144, 147, 151, 152. Competition, foreign and domestic, 58, 61, 65,
Case of Monopolies, 22-24, 73. 67. 72. 73> 77.79>8o, 103, 112, 113, 118, 126,
Cecil, Robt., secretary. Earl of Salisbury, 18,21, 130.
22, 26, JO, 51, 57, 85, 87, 102, 148, 192. Compositions, 12, 13, 16, 84, 122, 171, 172,
Cecil, Wm. See Burghley. »73> '74. 178, 186.
Chain-pump, 54. Concealments, 167, 172, 174.
Challoner, Sir Thos., 83. Concentration of production, of operations, 16,
Chamberlain, 30, 91, 95, 105. 36, 61, 122, 126.
Chambers, Jas., 152. Conflict of grants, 28, 109.
Chancery, 92, 146, 147, 241. Coningsby, Sir Richard, 30, 147.
Chapmen, 167, 196. Contractors, 56, 59, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96,
Chauntrell, 108. 124.
Charcoal, 108, no, 177, 179, 182, 183, 193. Conway, Sec, 93, 94, 119.
Charles I, 7, 12, 13, 28, 35, 5^, 54, Ch.iii, 93, Cope, 26, 86, 87, 89.
96, 99, 112, 113, 122, 125, 131, 186, 197, 226, Copley, Capt. Jno., no.
241, 245, Copper, 50, 51, 55, 60, 61, 82, 177, 181, 182,
Chemicals, 8. 191, 200.
Chester, 11. Copper money, 97.
Chiddingfold, 68. Copperas, 82.
Chilworth, 56. Cordage, 9, 144.
Cinque Ports, 115. Com, 9, 10, 143, 147, 154, 168, 203.
Civil list, 17, 132. Corn-mill, 4.
Civil war, 35, 40, 58, 79, 80, 99, no, in. Cornwall, 57.
Clamor, 78, 168, 170. Cornwallis, Thos., 147, 149, 151, 152.
Clarendon. See Hyde, Edw. Corporations, municipal and private, 21, 35,
Clavell, Sir Wm., 88. 37. 41. 44. 79. I". "3. "7. "3. n^> '55.
Clode, 8. 172.
Cloth, cloth trade, cloth dressing, cloth mer- Corruption, 17, 41, 127, 132.
chants, cloth licenses, cloth manufacturers, Cottages, 171, 173.
cloth workers, " whites,'* 5, 8, 10, n, 27, 59, Cottington, Lord, 115, 123.
83, 101-106, n9, 142, 147, 165, 167, 168. Cotton industry, 28.
Coal, sea-coal, pit-coal, stone-coal, earth-coal, Covenants, 122, 126.
turf, impositions, mines, refining, 32, 61-63, Craford, John, 143, 145.
71-89,108-111,140,142,147,150, 168, 176— Cranick, Burchsard, 63.
206, 214-241. Creditors, 87, 89.
Cobham, Geo., 7. Cromwell, Oliver, 54, no.
Cockayne, Alderman, 103, 104, 105. Cromwell, Richard, 54.
Coinage, 52. Crutched Friars, 69.
INDEX 255
Cumberland, 50. Elliots, 29.
Cumberland, Countess of, loS. Ellis, 15.
Cunningham Wm., 60, 96, 106, IlS, 123, Emigration, 74.
Z48. Employees. See Workmen.
Currants, 147, 150. Encouragement, 60, 62, 81, no, 131,188,208.
Customs duties. &ee Duties. Encroachments, 172, 174.
Customs, collectors and farmers, 54, 97, 99, Engines, 56, 63, 65, 108, 178, 182-189, '94>
116. 195, 209, 210, 211, 220, 223, 225, 227, 229,
237. 238. ^40-
Darby, Abram, no. Engrossing, engrossers, 56, 116, 127.
Darcy, Edw., 22, 23, 24, 143, 149, 151, 152. Entrepreneurs. See Undertakers.
Davies, J., 113, 114, 115, 116, 247. Entrepreneur, king as, 39, 40, 84, 89, 90, 100.
Dean, Forest of, 57, 70, 107. Essex, 142, 144.
Debates on monopolies, 20 fit., 28, 74, 76, 113. Evelyn, Jno., 68.
Debts, 87, 89, 90, 93, 95, 97. Exceptions in statute of monopolies, 34, 96,
Decrees, 44, 120, 126. 109.
Delakay, 68. Exchequer, 17, 31,43, 85, 94, 95,98, 186, 198,
Delves, Geo., 27. 199, 202, 204, 222, 232, 236, 238, 239, 240.
Denizens, 167, 194. Exchequer, Court of, 26, 56, 73, 127, 137, 138,
Deptford, 144. •S'l '54. 195. ^". "i. "3. "4. »39-
Pevon, 57. Excise, 42, iz6, 131, 132.
De Vos, 82. Exeter, 57.
D'Ewes, Sir Simonds, 10, 18, 20, 113, 152, Z48. Expansion, 6, 62, 129, 130, 131.
Dice, 42, 172. Experiments, 7, 59, 71, 89, 98, 105, 107, no,
Diplomacy, foreign, 30, 40. ni, n2, 193, 215.
Dispensations, dispensing licenses and com- Exploitation, 17, 36, 65, 83, 109, 119, 129, 132.
missions, 9, 12-14, '3S> I3'> 148, 167. Exports, export licenses, 8-11, 14, 15, 17, 27,
Diversification of industry, 6, 79, 129. 54, 102-105, "3' "3. '^T. 170, 171. 174.
Dolyn. See Becku. 234.
Domestic system, 6. Extensions of patent. See Reissue.
Dorset, Earl of, 26.
Draining, 8, 52, 53, 54, 62, 63, 66, 147, zoo, 203. Fagniez, 5.
Drake, Richard, 17, 143, 149, 151, 152. Farms, farmers, 40, 51, 54, 56, 59, 72, 83-98.
Dredging, 8. Farmer, Simon, 143, 145, 151, 152.
Dressing, 103, 105. Farthing tokens, 45.
Droitwich, 118. Favorites, 80, 132.
Duckett, 50. Fines, 43, 44, 120, 121, 172, 175.
Dudley, Edward, Lord, 71, 109, 141, 193-247. Firth, C. H., 98.
Dudley, Dud, 60, 71, 79, 108-111. Fiscal policy, 14, 15, 31, 40, 41, 104, 128,
Duke, Jno., 116. 131.
Durham, 103, 106, 249. Fishing towns, 114, 115.
Dunning, 44. Fitzwilliams, Wm., 27.
Duties, revenue and protective, 38, 60, 68, 76, Flax, 9, 142, 148.
102, 113, 114, 118, 183, 222, 225, 234, 235. Fleet, 120.
Dyeinganddyers, 11,84, 99, 102, l°3> ^°S'^^^< Fleetwood, 13.
179. Fleming, solicitor-general, 21, 23.
Dyer, Sir Edw., 14, 146, 148. Flood, Dr. Robt., 29,
Forcett, Edw., 70, 215.
East India Co., 131. Foreigners. See Aliens.
Ector, D., 144. Forestallers, 116.
Eld, Geo., 176. Forests. See Woods.
Edw. Ill, 5, 21, 22. Forestry, 107.
Edw. VI, 44. Forfeitures, 15, 73, 76, 164, 172, 175, 189, 194,
Egerton, Baron EUesmere, lord keeper, 18, 30. 205, 238, 241.
Ehrenberg, 50. Foulke, Roger, 197-205.
Elizabeth, Queen, ch.
27, 31, 33, 35, 36, 43,
i, Fournier, 4.
52, 62, 68, 82, 98, 112, 140, 142, 156, 160, Fowles, Sir David, 83.
163, 206, 245, 246. France, 3, 4, 5, 30, 58, 77, 103, n3, 181, 197,
EUesmere. See Egerton. 214, 226.
256 INDEX
Freeman, Martin, 91, 91. Hatband-makers, 172, 175.
Fuel, 55, 56, 68, 70, 74, 75, 107, 109, 176, 178, Harris, Valentine, 149, 152,
179, 182-6, 189, 203, 209, 214, 220, 221, Hart, Sir Percival, Kt., 70, 215.
226. Hay, 168, 171, 174.
Fuggers, 50. Hayes, Jno., et al., 127.
Fuller, 18, 23, 24, 56. Hayes, Thos., 216, 217.
Furnaces, 8, 56, 78, 89, 108, III, 176-187, 191- Hayward, Sir Thos., 216, 217.
195, 211, 222-240. Hearths, 178, 182, 184, 185, 186.
Fusing of ores, 54, iii, 179. Hemp, 9, 142, 148.
Fustians, 27. Henry VI, 32.
Heniy VII, 44.
Galloway, R. L., 63, Z49. Henry VIII, 44.
Games, gaming-houses, 9, 147, 149, 151, Henry, Prince, 44, 108, 186.
152. Henzeys, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80.
Gardiner, S. R., 30, 31, 32, 44, 71, 104, 106, Henzey, Edw., 74.
121, 122, 125, 249. Henzey, Joshua, 73.
George, Sir Thos., 146. Herbert, 26.
Germany, 4, 64, 71, 103. Herrings, 171, 174.
Glass, glasses, glass-houses, glass-furnaces, Hewins, W. A. S., 107, 249.
glass-makers, glass-smelting, glaziers, 3, 4, j, Hide, Laurence, 21.
8, 9, 28-32, 67-81, 107, 140, 143, 145, no, Hides, 147, 148.
'S*. 157. I77i 179. "9'. 2i4-»4'- Highbury, 179.
Gibson, Sir Jno., 98, 99. Hopton, Reynold, 143, 145.
Gig-mill, 9, 12, 13, 146, 149. Horns, homers, 150, 172, 175.
Gilds, 5, 7, 37. Horsey, Sir Geo., Kt., 197-205.
Gisborough, 88. Horth, Thos., 115, 116.
Gloucester, 57. Hostmen, 140.
Gloucestershire, 57, 105. Hot-press, 167.
Gold, 50, 55, 181, 200, 201, 203, 204. Houdoy, 3.
Gold and silver thread, 31, 32. Houghton, Jno., 79, 247.
Gold and silver foliat, 167. Houghstetter, Daniel, 50, 51, 61, 63.
Golden speech, 22, 160. Houghstetter, Jos., 53.
Gordon, J. W., 28, 250. Howell, J., 74, 247.
Grain. See Com. Howes, Edm., 246.
Gray, Wm., 79, 247. Hubbers, Henry, 191, 192.
Grazebrook, 70. Hull, 142.
Gresham, Sir Thos., 50. Hulme, E. W., 5, 8, 9, 18, 56, 63, 67, 69, 112,
Grievances, 9, 25, 26, 27, 45, 76, 78, 112, 132, 249.
156, 166-171, 218. Humphrey, Wm., 55, 56.
Grinding-machines, 7, 8. Hungary, 71.
Grocers, 15, 38, 121. Hunsdon, Lord, 142.
Guilford, 68. Huntingdon, Earl of, 82.
Gun-metal, 10. Husband, £., 126, 248.
Gunpowder. See Powder. Hyde, Edw., Earl of Clarendon, 41, 42, 43,
Gutstring-makers, 172, 175. H7-
Hale, 149, 152. Illicit trading and producing, 10, 16,38,59, 83,
Hales, Jno., 6, 246. 85, loi, 125, 126.
Hall, Hubert, 17. Immigrants, immigration, 81, 107, 129.
Hallam, 4. Impeachment, 32, 33.
Hallen, C, 68, 69, 70, 74, 249. Importation, 11, 76, 117, 168, 171, 224,
Hanbery, 56, 58. 225.
Hansards, 44. Importation restrained, 40, 58, 69, 73, 77, 84,
Harding, 145. 96, 101, 116, 120, 121, 123, 130, 133, 218,
Harding, Edward, 127. 2'9. ^37-
Hardres, Sir Thos., 127, 248. Imposts, impositions, 32, 114, 117, 127, 147,
Harington, Sir Jno., 19, 246. 183.
Hartshome, A., 68, 69, 74, 249. Imprisonment, 115, 120, 121, 126, 189, 194,
Haslemore, 177. 210.
INDEX 257
ImproTements, 29, 35, 56, 61, 62, 80, 130. Kempe, 68, 72.
Indosures, 12. Kempe, Jno., 5.
Incorporation, 37-40, 50, 56, 102, 114, 115, 119, Kent, 68, 107, 142, 144,
123-127, 175. Keswick, 51.
Indentures, 39, 50, 76, 98, 114, 120, 126, 172, King's Bench, 22, 26, 137, 138.
180, 181, 184, 190, 191, 228, 230, 241. Kiike, 148.
Independent producers, 39, 72, 74, 116, 117, Kingswinford, 70.
120, 121, 122, 126. Klostermann, 3.
Industrial history, Pt. II. Knevett, Thos., 143.
Inertia of patentees, 52, 58, 59. Kohler, 3.
Infringements and infringers, 15, 43, 44, 57, 69, Knowles, Lilian Tomn, 248.
71. 73> 76. 85, 109, 119, 120, 122, 233. Laborers. See Workmen.
Inglested, Rudolph, 143.
Ingram, Sir Arthur, 84-96, loi. Lace, bone-, 45, 172, 174.
Initiative in legislation, 19, 120. Lake, Thos., 144.
Initiative, private, 129, 130. Lamond, Miss, 6.
Inns. See Ale-houses. Lampems, 45, 172, 174.
Insolvency, 86, 90. Lapis calaminaris. See Calamine stone.
Interest, usury, 83, 88, 95, 105, 129. Larousse, 4.
Interlopers, 106, 165. Lastage and ballastage. See Ballasting.
Introduction of foreign arts and artisans, 5, 6, Latten, 55, 59, 60.
24. Laud, Archbishop, 122-125.
Instruments, 179-191, 195, 203, 211. Launcelot, Bishop of Winchester, 169.
Inventions, inventors, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, Law, common law, law courts, law trials, law-
35. SS^ S*. 57, 60, (>i-(>l,li, 80, 108-114, 119, yers, 17-22, 25-35, 45, 56, 76, 77, 80, 124-
"4> 13', '37, 138, 147, 154, »72, 175-193, 127, 132, 136, 157, 163, 164, 168, 205, 216.
198, 207-210, 214, 215, 226, 231. Lead, lead mining, 51-56, 61, 62, 88, 142, 150,
Investigation, 17, 18, 22, 25, 32, 45, 78, 84, 88, 177, 181, 182, 191, 200.
91, 9^> 93, 94, 95, "6, "6, '56, i'3- Leaden seals, 45.
Investment and investors, 77, loi, 108, 129, Leases, 52, 53, 59, 63, 79, 90, 94-100, 114.
131. Leather, buffes, 8, 9, 13, 14, 83, 143, 146, 148,
Ireland, 11, 177, 178, 181, 184, 197, 207, 209, 150, 152, 157, 167.
214, 215, 226, 231-239. Legitimacy of a patent, 24, 79.
Irish yarn, 157. See Linen yarn. Leicester, 50.
Iron, iron industry, iron-mining, iron-works, Lennox, Duke of, 27.
iron-founders, iron-making, iron-wire, iron- Le Vaillant de la Fieffe, 68.
ore, iron smelting, 5, 10, 45, 56, 58, 63, 67, Levant, 47.
70, 72, 82, 88, 107-HI, 141-150, 168, 171- Levasseur, 5.
206. Liberties, 18, 132.
Isleworth, 59. Licensing system, 9, 16, 65, 85. See Exports.
Islington, 178. Lilbume, Jno., 126, 247.
Italy, 4. Linen cloth, 119, 172.
Linen yam, 11, 142, 147, 157.
James 1, 7, 12, 18, ch. ii, 37, 45, 51, 82, 93,
98- Lists, shreds, and horns, ill, 143, 147, 148,
106, 112, 119, 163, 166, 169, 181, 193, 214, 150, 151, 152, 167.
236, 244, 245. Litigation, 109, 120, 126.
Johnson, Robt., 88-92. Lodge, 145.
Johnson, Sam'I, 105. Logwood, 26, 171, 174.
Joint stock, 35, 122, 131. London, 22, 29, 37, 38, 40, 57, 59, 60, 74, 78,
Jones, Roger, 119, 126, 207-212. 83, 84, 88, 97, 99, 102, 107, 1 14-126, 139,
Jones, Thos., 86. 142, 144, 158, 171, 172, 174, 209, 218.
Judgment delayed, 126, 127. London, suburbs, 39.
Jugs (stone). See Pots. Longe, Geo., 68.
Justice, 164, 193, 237, 240. Lopaz, Dr., 143.
Justice, courts of, 170. Lords, House of, 6, 33, 78, 99.
Juion, 123. Lorraine, 67, 68, 80.
Losses, 31, 83, 90.
Kellaway, Robt., 216, 217. Low Countries, 4, 29, 30, 67, 103, 106.
Kelp, 172, 174, 177. »o8, 209. Lowe, 91, 92.
258 INDEX
liît, 209, 210. Mutio, Theseus, 4.
Lyndsey, 59. Myddleton, Sir Hugh, 52, 53, 54.
Lynn, 14Z. Myddleton, Lady, 53.
Machines. See Engines. National economy, 6, 129.

Malynes, Gerard, 52, 83, S4, 90, 246. Native industries, 116, 117.
Mansell, Sir Robt., 29, 72-81, 141, 214-241. Naunton, Sir Robt., 17, 247.
Mantua, 77. Navy, 107, 214.
Markets, 65, 167. Neri, A., 79.
Martin, Anthony, 143. Nesbit, 3.
Martin, Sir Richard, 56. Netherlands. See Low Countries.
Mart town. See Staple. Neville, Sir H., 143, 151, 152.
Master workmen, small masters, 16, 36, 37, 67, Newcastle, 62, 74, 78, 79, 97, 114, 117, 140.
102, 120-125. New draperies, 27, 31, 32, 45, 103, 157, 168.
Matthews, £liz., 149, 151, 152. Newfoundland, 116.
Maxwell, James, 141. Noell, Sir Henry, 143, 149, 151, 152.
Mechanical inventions. See Inventions. Non obstantes, 154.
Mefflyn, 71. Norden, John, 107, 143, 148, 152, 246.
Meikleham, R. S., 249. Norfolk, II, 142.
Melcomb Regis, 115. Norfolk, Duke of, 142.
Mendip, j6. Normandy, 68, 80.
Mercantilism, 58, 104, 106. Northampton, 30.
Merchant Adventurers, 11, 44, 102-106, 165. Norton, Bonham, 149, 153.
Merchant Adventurers, New, 104, 105, 106, Norwich, 6.
.65. Nottingham, Lord, 75.
Merchants, 36, 67, 83, 84, 88, 89, 103, 105, Nottinghamshire, 177.
116, 165, 172, 174. Nova Scotia, 172.
Merret, C, 79, 247. Noy, Wm., 18, 24, 56, 248.
Messengers of Chamber, 72, 122, 158. Nullification of patents, no, 196, 205, 215, 216,
Metals, 50, 52, 61, 176-185, 189, 190, 197-201.
Meysey, 29.
Michell, Sir Francis, 32. Oil, 8, 9, 120, 121, 149, 150, 151, 152,156,168.
Middleburgh, 86, 92, 106, 165. Oldys, 10.
Middlemen, 11, 123. Oppenheim, 75.
Middlesex, 59, 142, 144, 186. Opposition, 17, 20-26, 32, 69, 74, no, 115, 124.
Milford Haven, 74. Oppression, 27, 170.
Mills, 55, 108, 177, 178, 182-187, *oo- Ordish, T. F., 113, 249.
Mines, miners, mining, minerals, 8, 49-63, 66, Ordnance, 10, 51, 139, 143, 151, 152, 168.
154. 177, 19'. '97. 200-205. Ordinaries, See Taverns.
Mineral and Battery works, 55-61. Orlandini, 68, 69.
Mines royal, 197, 201, 203. Ovens, 8, in.
Mints, 54, 55, 203, 204. Overman, 120.
Mismanagement, 58, 98, 100. Oxford, 117.
Misselden, £., 106, 246.
Mompesson, Sir Giles, 32. Page, Wm., 5, 67, 112, 249.
Monpeson, Richard, 143. Pakington, Sir Jno., 15, 143, J44, 149-53.
Montgomery, Philip, Earl of, 72, 216, 217. Palmer, 29.
Moore, Sir Francis, 23, 248. Palmer, Andrew, 119, 126, 207-212.
More, 26. Paper, 3, 8, 9, 142, 145, 151, 152, 168.
Morley, Thos., 149, 153. Parker, Jno., 147.
Morris, Peter, 63. Parkman, Francis, 5.
Monmouthshire, 56. Partnership and partners, 92, no.
Motive of grants, 64, 74, 125. Parry, 26.
Mountjoy, Earl of, 82. Peat, 57, 197, 198, 199, 203.
Mulgrave, Earl of. See Sheffield, Edm. Pelts, 10, 147, 157.
Mulgrave, castle and manor, 98. Pembroke, 50, 169.
Municipal monopolies, 3, 4, 37. Penal statutes, 12, 163, 164.
Murdin, 142. Penalties, 44, 76, 172, 175, 189, 194, 210, 241.
Murford, Nicholas, 114, 115, 116. Pensioners, pensions, 16, 17, 71, 91, 96, 217.
INDEX 259
Penzarii, I2Z. Pumps, pumping, 53, 62.
Percival, Thos., 71, 215-217. Punishments, 15, 73, 95, 158, 194, 195, 212,
Perkins, Christopher, Kt., 192. 224, 234, 236, 237, 239.
Personal government of Charles, 41-2, 112. Purbeck, Isle of, 74.
Peterson, Wm., 107, 142.
Petitions, 21, 45, 163, 169, 181, 197. Quarrels, 69, 71, 94, 114.
Pettus, Sir J., 50, 52, 247. Queen's Bench. See King's Bench.
Pewterer, 59. Quicksilver, 50, 55, 200, 201.
Pilchards, 149, 150. âo warranto, 1.1), 30, 154, 172, 175.
Pindar, Sir Paul, 93, 96-100.
Pins, pinmakers, 30, 40, 59, 60. Raleigh, Sir Walter, 10, 17, 21, 146, 148, 151)
Playing-cards. See Cards. 152.
Plumstead Marshes, 8. Ramsey, David, 64, 197-205.
Policies of (marine) assurance, 146. Raw materials, 123, 126.
Policy of state, 14, 37, 40, 60, 128, 130. Re, Isle of, 113.
Political history, Pt. I. Recall of grants, 45, 175.
Poole, 115. Reference, referees, 18, 26, 32, 33, 58, 75, 76,
Pope, 82, 83. 126.
Portland, Earl of. See Weston. Refiners and refining, in, 116, 178, 200, 201,
Potash, izo, 209, 211. 204.
Pots (stone), bottles, heath brush, 143, 149, Reforms, 30, 31, 169.
150, 151, 152, 157, 168. Regrators, 11, 116.
Pottery, 191. Regulation of industry, 6, 14, 36, 39, 52.
Pouldavies, 149, 153, 156, 157. Reissue, 8, 27, 76, 80, no.
Powder, 139, 150. Renewal of lease, 67, 70, 76, 80, 82, 98.
Powder-boxes, bullet-boxes, flasks, 143, 145. Renouard, 4, 5.
Powle, no, 247. Rents to crown, 15, 16, 28, 31, 32, 39, 41, 42,
Prerogative, 17-23,44, 154, 155, 158, 163, 184, S^' 53' 54. 64. 68, 70, 71, 78, 86, 87, 88, 96,
189, 210. 98, 99, 116, 120, 123, 124, 186, 198, 199, 201,
Prices, 29, 40, 59, 72-77. 82, 83, 84, 90, 91, loi, 205, 217, 219, 228, 229, 232, 235, 240.
104, 107, 109, 112-117, 120-125, 2°3) *°8> Rents to projectors, patentees, or companies,
212, 214, 218, 219, 222, 229, 234, 235. 51, 59, 84, 178.
Printing and printing licenses, 3, 139, 143, 146, Reports, 85, 127, 156.
148, 149, 152, 153, 168, 178. Restrictions upon industry, 128, 130.
Proclamations against monopolies, 22, 113,116, Restraint of trade, 132.
156, 163, 166, 173. Results, economic, political, and legal, of the
Proctor, Thos., 107, 142. monopoly policy, 61, 70,71, 96,99, 101,110,
Profits, 15, 16, 29, 42, 52-58, 75, 82, 83, 86, 87, 131, 132.
88, 91-98, loi, 113, 122, 124, 126, 161, 178, Retail, retailers, 116, 117, 121, 194, 209, 222,
184-191, 200, 201, 207, 208, 209, 221, 223, 227, 230, 231, 235.
227. Revenue, parliamentary, 31, 67, 104, 126,
Progress, 79, 129, 130. 132, 171.
Projects, projectors, 17, 30, 31, 39, 42, 43, 44, Revenue from monopolies, 31, 41, 42.
55, 60, 70, 71, 82, 83, 84, 94, 96, 102, 103, 104, Reversion of farm, 98.
108, 114, 115, 119, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, Reversion, grant in, 70.
178, 179, 214, 215. Revocations, 8, 22, 28-34, 38, 45, 70, 71, 76,
Promoters, 82, 89. 100, 108, 116, 122, 125, 143, 144, 154, 155,
Proposals, 75, 87, 89, 90, 94, 103, I04, 115. 157, 163, 167, 173, 174.
Prosecutions, 15, 56. Reward of invention, 184, 193.
Prospectors, 52, 55. Reward of servants and favorites, 14.
Prosperity, 70, 85, 99. Richardson, 118.

"Protection" to debtors, 50, 55, 86, 89, 90, 163. Richmond, Lady, 45.
Protection (trade), 10, 101,113, 130. S« Im- Roberts, Jas., 152.
portation and Exports. Robinson, Henry, 117, 247.
Protection to foreign workmen, 5. Rochelle, 113.
Protector. See Cromwell, 118. Rochester, Robt., Vise, Baron of Warwick,
Protestants, 68, 129. 108, 178, 181, 187, 191.
Protests vs. monopolies, 26, 27, 28. Rogers, J. E. T., 117.
Prothero, G. W., 21, 31, 33, 43, 249. Rolvenson, Jno., 108, 246.
26o INDEX
Royalist, 41, no. Somerset, 57.
Royalties, 50, 51, 52, 201-204. Southampton, 114, 115.
Rushworth, J., 44-45, 120, 248. Southwark, 179.
Russell, Thos., 91. Spain, 103, 1 131
Rymer, 5. Sparke, Robt., 148.
Specifications, 35, 65, 108.
S-, W-, (Gent.), 28, 247. Speculation, 55, 81, 93, 127.
Sail-cloth, 8. Spectacle-makers, 172, 175.
St. Bartholomew, massacre of, 68. Spedding, 105.
St. Giles without Cripplegate, 59. Speyer, Johann von, 3.
St. James, 186, 187. Spillman, John, 142, 145, 151, 152.
Sale of concessions, 41, 42. Stafford, Sir Edw., 146.
Salisbury, Earl of. See Cecil, Robt. Staffordshire, 70, 72, 109.
Salt, salt-makers, salt manufacture, salt trade, Stamps, 28, 200, 204.
8, 9, 17, 21, 28, 45, 112-U8, 121, 124, 142, "Stand" of cloth, 104, 105.
150, 156, 168. Stanhope, Michael, 144, 149, 151, 152.
Salter, Edw., 70, 71, 215. Staple, 106, 165.
Saltpeter, saltpetermen, 7, 8, 9, 139, 145, 149, Star Chamber, 43, 44, 53, 92, 120, 121, 126.
150, 157, 163. Starch, starchmakers, 8, 9, 15, 16, 37, 38, 142,
Savoy, The, 49. 144. 149. '5'. '5^. '57-
Schetts, Ede., 145. Statute of monopolies, 33, 34, 35, 37, H2, 123,
Schuermans, H., 74. 126, 135-141.
Schiedame, Jno., 5. Steel, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 176, 182,
Scire jaciai^ 30, 175. 191.
Scotland, 77, 113, 117, 172, 177, 178, 181, 182, Steere, Thos., 56, 57.
184, 214, 224, 225, 226, 235, 236. Steynberg, 49, 50, 51.
Scrope, Lord, 51. "Stock." See Capital.
Sealing, 27, 39, 40, 143, 172, 174. Stourbridge, 70, 71.
Search, searching, survey, 9, 36, 40, 119, 120, Stow, J., 16, 69, 246, 249.
123, 127, 144, 174, 190, 199, 200, 211, 222, Strafford, Earl of, 98, 99.
"3' ^34. 236, 237, 238. Strangers. See Aliens.
Sea-weed, 172, 174. Straw, 168, 171, 174.
Secrets and secrecy, 65, 80, 81, 109, no, ill, Stringer, M., 60, 247.
124. Strype, 16, 249.
Servants, 17, 73, 74, 75, 80, 88, 117, 161, 163, Stuarts, 19, 37, 44, 64, 69, 248.
195, 196, 203, 208, 211, 223, 226, 227, 236- Stuard, Mark, 143.
239. See Workmen. Stuard, Simon, 143.
Shares and shareholders, 50, 51, 56, 84, 108, Stubbes, Wm., 142.
131, 186, 187, 191. Sturtevant, Simon, 71, 107, 108, 176, 180-192,
Sheffield, Edm., Baron, 83, 85, 96-100. 246.
Sheepskins, 172, 174. Subsidies, parliamentary, 40, 50.
Shields, South and North, 114-118. Suffolk, Earl of, lord treas., 30, 90.
Ships, shipping, shipwrights, 5, 74, 75, 83, 96, Suffolk Co., 142, 144.
112, 117, 168, 169, 193, 214, 238. Sulphur, brimstone, 8, 148, 152.
Ship-money, 43. Suppression, 68, 73, 97.
Shrewsbury, Earl of, 145. Surrender of grants, 27, 104,106, 114, 167,175.
Shrewsbury, 6, 13. Surrey, 56, 68, 71, 142, 144, 167, 177.
Singer, Sir Henry, 149, 152. Suspension of privileges, 25, 29, 38, 45, 104,
Shutz, Cornelius, 55, 57, 61. 106.
Silk-weavers, 39, 40. Sussex, 63, 67, 68, 71, 72, 107, 142, 144, 177.
Silver, 50-55, 181, 200-204. Synnerton, Jno., 63.
Slingsby, Sir Wm., 71.
Slitting-mills, 142. Talbot, 145.
Smalt, 29, 141. Tanning. See Leather.
Smith, Wm., 147. Taverns, 9, 50, 172, 174.
Smuggling. See Illicit trading. Teaching Englishmen, 24, 55, 74, 79, 80.
Soap, soap-boilers, 7, 8, 36, 42, 93,94,112, 116, Term of privileges, 8, 76, 108, 176, 186, 187,
1 19-128, 207-213. 190-199, 203, 205, 209-212, 215, 2i6, 217,
Somers, 31, 160. 220, 221, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236.
INDEX 261
Tests, public, 119, 120. Waechter, 3.
Thames, 107, 144, 16S. Wages, 40, 50, 57, 78, 88-91, 95, 100, 203.
Thelwall, Bevis, 71, 216, 217. Wales, 40, 50, 52, 57, 61, 177-234-
"Thorough," 13, 39, 43. Wales, Prince of, 189.
Thurland, master of the Savoy, 9, 50. Warrants, 73, 115, 121, 172, 174, 175.
Tiles, paving, 168, 182, 191. Water-power, 57, 59.
Timber. See Wood. Water-raising, 8, 62, 63.
Tin, 26, 44, 61, 63, 143, 145, 147, 148, 152, 177, Water-supply, 66.
181, 182, 191 Watkins, Wm., 148, 152.
Tintern, Tintern Abbey, 56, 57, 58. Welldon, Sir Anthony, 41, 247.
Tittory, 74, 80. Welsh, Richard, 148, 152.
Tobacco, 42, 171, 173. Wentworth, 123.
Tobacco-pipes, tobacco-pipe makers, 167, 172, Westminster, Westm. Co., 120-126, 142, 144,
'75- 159, 171, 174, 186, 196, 206, 213, 214, 226.
Tools, 57, 88, 109, 182-189, 203. Weston, Sir Richard, lord treas.. Earl of Port-
Tower of London, 52, 97, 203. land, 122, 123, 124.
Townshend, H., 20, 21, 22, 148, 150, 151, 154, Weymouth, 115.
248. Wheat, bran, flour, 38, 142, 143, 144.
Tracy, Sir Thos., Ji6, 217. Whitehall, 160, 169.
Trade, traders, tradesmen, trading companies, Wight, Isle of, 82.
trades, 25, 102, 105, 112, 117, 123, 127, 131, Wight, Thos., 149, 153.
139, 163, 165, 183, 184, 207, 230, 231. Wilkes, Thos., 8, 17, 112, 113, 142.
Trade-mark, 210. Wiltshire, 57.
"Translation," 39. William, Bishop of St. David, 169.
Transportation, 57, 88, 113, 165, 171, 177,204, Wimmes, 145.
209. Winchester House, 74, 179.
Transmutation, 82. Windebank, Thos., 144, 146.
"Treasure," 102, 208. Windebank, secretary, 78.
Treasury, 31, 41, 122. 5e« Exchequer. Wines, 26, 42, 124, 140, 146, 148, 151. See
Trees. See Woods. Taverns, Licenses.
Trent River, 74. Wine-cask, 167, 172, 174.
Trinity House, 144. Wire, 55-60.
Tudors, 5, 6, 19. Woad, 146, 149, 152, 158.
Turkey, 57. Wood, woods, destruction of, 50, 57, 67-75, ^^'
Turf, 197, 198, 199, 203. 89, 107, 109, 172, 174, 179, 182, 183, 193,
Turner, Wm., 84-90, 94, 96, 97. 203, 214-221, 226, 227, 228.
Tynemouth, 114. Wool, 10, II, 121, 142, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152,
Tyzacks, 68, 69, 74, 79, 80. 167, 168.

Tyzack, Paul, 72. Wool-cards, 57, 58.
Worcester, 6.
Undertakers, adventurers, 44, 52, 67, 79, 87, Worcestershire, 70, 71, 72, 109.
91, 106, 187. Worcester, Marquis, 30, 64, 247.

United Provinces. See Low Countries. Workmen, 50, 56-59, 67, 68, 77, 78, 79, 83, 86,
Unwin, Geo., 6, 30, 39, 40, 60, 102, 103, 104, 88, 89, 100, loi, 102, 105, 123, 203, 207, 224,
106, 250. 227, 230, 232. See Servants.
Venice, Yarmouth, 115.

5, 67, 68, 77, 235.
Verriers gentilshommes, 68. Yarranton, A., no, 247.
Verselini, Giacopo, 69, 70, 74, 80, 143. York, Duke of, 108, 178, 187-191.
Vematti, Sir Philibert, 109. York, 45, 125.
Villiers, Sir Edw., 32. York House, 88, 175.
Villiers, Christopher, 32. Yorkshire, 83, 91, 95, 96, 97, 100.
Vinegar, 9, ^lî-y>, 156. Young, Richard, 15, 142.
Vischer, Giles, 143.
"Voyage," 131. Zealand, 165.
Ziilc, 55, 59, 60, 61.
Wade, W., 148, 152. Zouch, Sir Edw., 71, 72, 76, 80, 216, 117.
rf TJ-—vfe-j
^hM^P%^&-
I^'^'^S!
,
^T^H.
'«, a 1, -Iff I
J , r

(1906) The English Patents of Monopoly

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

(1906) The English Patents of Monopoly

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

'^^^d.

3 1924 022 174 696

QJornrll IGaui ^rl^nnl IGibrary

tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in

the United States on the use of the text.

Volume II: The Lodging-House Problem in

Volume III: The Stannaries; study of the A

Volume IV: Railroad Reorganization, by Stuait

Volume V: Wool-Growing and the Tariff,

Volume VI Public Ownership of Telephones

on the Continent of Europe, by Arthur N.

Volume VII : The History of the British Post

Volume VIII : The Cotton Manufacturing In-

Volume IX : The History of

PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF

WILLIAM HYDE ^ICE, Ph.D.

AWARDED THE DAVID A. WELLS PRIZE FOR

BY THE PEESmENT AND FELLOWS OP HASVARD COLLEGE

cies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, aided my effort to do

Cambridge, Mass., August, igo6.

I. To the Case of Monopolies 3

Part II. Industrial History.

IV. The Mineral Companies . 49

Part III. Appendices. Bibliography. Index.

K. The "Golden Speech" of Queen Elizabeth, to her last Parliament,

W. Patent to Jones and Palmer for Soap, 1623 207

S. P. D State Papers, Domestic.

Docq Signet Office Docquet Books.

Hist. MSS. Com Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports.

B. M. Proc. Coll British Museum Collection of Proclamations.

Diet. Nat. Biog Dictionary of National Biography.

L. Q. R Law Quarterly Review.

Secondary works and articles cited by the names of their authois.

TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES

Numerous isolated attempts to grant patents of monopoly as a

trictusuo nisi ipse Mag. Johannes."

against infringement beyond their own borders, so that the ad-

patents du 13 Juin 1 551 octroyent a Theseus Mutio, de Bologne, faculte, permission

Then, too, the financial resources of the French monarchy tempted

Edw. Ill ;Pat. 1368, 42 Edw. Ill, pt. i.

not only in literature ^ but also in statutes,^ supported the protec-

new industries by increasing the extent and effectiveness of the

in internal economic conditions. The period covered by the reigns

industrial monopoly. It was important chiefly because of its na-

suggestion apparently came from abroad. The earhest recorded

application for an exclusive patent for introducing a new art into

' S. P. D. E. 1558, i, 56.

3, 1562), for saltpeter.

' See list of patents, 1570-1600, by Mr. Hulme in L. Q. R. January, 1900.

' See below, chapter on the Cloth Project.

TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1

were granted, each for a term of years, authorizing a limited num-

jealousy of foreign countries led parliaments to include refuse and

these transactions virtually enabled offenders to bargain, either

' See Appendix M.

TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1

have been more misguided than that of prescribing a uniform

hquidating the debts of two courtiers whose financial circumstances

performance of a contract which bears the indication of having

February 8, September 6, October 6, November i, 1595, January 11, 17, Febru-

1 ENGLISH PATENTS OF MONOPOLY

Strype's Stow's Survey, ii, 177; B. M. Add. 36767, fol. n; S. P. D. October,

TO THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES 1